the byzantine gold coinage of spania (justinian i to ...1).pdf · rn 2011, p. 351-401 peter...

RN 2011, p. 351-401

Peter Bartlett*, Andrew Oddy**, Cécile MOrrissOn***

The Byzantine gold coinage of Spania(Justinian I to Heraclius)

To the memory of Philip Griersonon the hundredth anniversary of his birth

15 November 2010

Summary – We publish the results of measurements of specific gravity by Peter Bartlett on 23 of 32 known coins of the rare Byzantine tremissis coinage minted in Spania at Cartagena or Malaga from the mid sixth century to about 625. These results are compared with other largely unpub-lished analyses of Visigothic coins of the same period. The fineness declined gradually over time from Justinian (c. 90 %) to Heraclius (c. 72 %). This decline followed, but was always behind, that of the fineness of the Visigothic coinage. It is likely that the Byzantines were measuring the gold content of the circulating Visigothic coins and adjusting their coinage alloy to make it acceptable in the area of Southern Iberia. Of course, they may have reminted Visigothic coins without adjusting the alloy. The estimation of the size of the coinage, obviously very uncertain due to the low numbers, suggests that is was much smaller that that of the Visigoths and that is was of the order of ten times larger in the period of Justinian to Maurice than it was later under Phocas and Heraclius.

Résumé – On publie ici les résultats de mesures du poids spécifique pratiquées par P. Bartlett sur 23 des 32 exemplaires connus de ces rares tremisses, frappés par les Byzantins, à Carthagène ou à Malaga, entre le milieu du vie siècle et 625 environ. Ces résultats sont comparés à d’autres données en grande partie inédites du monnayage visigoth de la même période. Le déclin du titre est plus ou moins parallèle depuis Justinien (env. 90 %) jusqu’à Héraclius (env. 72 %). Mais un examen attentif des données semble indiquer que les autorités byzantines se calquaient avec retard sur l’étalon visigoth. Il est probable qu’elles devaient tester les monnaies du royaume visigoth et en recyler une partie afin de rendre leurs tremisses acceptables dans la zone de circulation sud-ibérique. L’analyse des coins, évidemment bien incertaine vu le petit nombre d’exemplaires, indique provisoirement des émissions dix fois supérieures dans la première période à celles de Phocas et Héraclius.

Over 50 years ago Philip Grierson made the startling proposal that a series of gold coins minted in the names of emperors from Justinian to Heraclius, many of which had hints of a Spanish origin, were produced by the Byzantines, probably at Cartagena, in their province of Spania, an enclave on the Mediterranean coast

* Independent researcher. Apartado 206, Ciudad Conon, Costa Rica.Email: [email protected].

** Independent scholar. Email: [email protected]*** CNRS-UMR 8167, 52 rue du Cardinal-Lemoine, 75005, Paris.

Email: [email protected].

PETER BARTLETT / ANDREW ODDY / CÉCILE MORRISSON352

RN 2011, p. 351-401

they held from c. 552-625.1 While numismatists have generally accepted Grierson’s attributions and they are included in major catalogues,2 some Spanish historians and archaeologists and others have expressed doubts.3 While the first of us was collecting data on the metrology of Visigothic coins from the 6th and 7th centuries AD at the American Numismatic Society in 2001, it was decided to include the Byzantine coins which Grierson had identified as being from Spania and subsequently it was decided to include all available coins in other collections.4 Hence the long gestation period for this paper.

Method

The specific gravity (SG) method for estimating gold content was chosen at the beginning of the project as it is the only method of analysis that can be carried out in situ in the relevant collections. It has the added advantage of being completely non-destructive. The measurement of specific gravity as a method of analysis for gold content depends on Archimedes’ Principle5 which states that ‘any submerged object displaces its own weight of immersion fluid’. There is, however, no evidence that the Greeks adapted this principle for the quantitative assaying of gold alloys, and the earliest reference to specific gravity analysis dates from the 6C AD.6 Since the nineteenth century, specific gravity analysis

1. P. GriersOn, Una Ceca Bizantina en España, Numario Hispánico, 4, 8, 1955, pp. 305-314 (henceforth GriersOn).

2. E.g. DOC., BNCByz, MIB, MIBE, MIBEC and D. sear, Byzantine Coins and their values, 2nd ed., London, 1987.

3. J. vizcaínO sánchez, La Presencia Bizantina en Hispania (Siglos VI-VII) La Documentaciόn Arqueológica, Murcia, 2009, pp. 687-725 and in particular pp. 714-716 (henceforth vizcaínO sánchez); D. Bernal casasOla, Bizancio in España desde la prespectiva arqueolόgica, in Bizancio y al Península Ibérica, De la Antigüedad Tardía a la Edad Moderna, edited by I. Pérez Martín and P. Bádenas de la Peña, Madrid, 2004, pp. 61-99, at p. 84; X. Barral i altet, La circulation des monnaies suèves et visigothiques, Munich, 1976, p. 66 (henceforth Barral i altet).

4. Acknowledgments: P. Bartlett wishes to thank the many curators, scholars and private collectors who helped him collecting data: Duncan Hook and Richard Abdy, British Museum, London; Marta Campo, Gabinet Numismàtic de Catalunya, Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, Barcelona; Matthias Ohm, Landesmuseum, Württemberg, Stuttgart; Martín Almargo-Gorbea, Director Gabi-nete del Antigüedades, Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid; Robert Hoge and Elena Stolyarik, American Numismatic Society, New York; Paloma Otero, Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid; Bernardo Moll, Menorca; Josep Pellicer, Asociación Numismatica Española, Barcelona; Francisco Giménez Chornet, Alberic; D.M. Metcalf, Oxford; Jaime Vizcaíno Sánchez, Universidad de Murcia; Gonzalo Cores, Madrid; Ruth Pliego, Seville. The authors are grateful to Maryse Blet-Lemarquand (CNRS, IRAMAT, Orléans) for analyzing the only coin of Spania in the BnF and for her helpful complements.

5. Discovered by the Greek mathematician and physicist Archimedes of Syracuse c.287-c.212 BC.6. A brief history of gold assay can be found in A. Oddy, Assaying in Antiquity, Gold Bulletin

16 (2), 1983, pp. 52-59 and Idem, The assaying of gold by touchstone in antiquity and the medieval world, in C. eluère (ed.) Outils et ateliers d’orfèvres des temps anciens, Antiquités nationales Mémoires 2, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1993, pp. 93-100.

THE BYZANTINE GOLD COINAGE OF SPANIA 353

RN 2011, p. 351-401

has been used intermittently for the study of the debasement of a number of gold coinages, but the method was improved in 1970 when a new dense immersion liquid, perfluoro-1-methyl decalin, became commercially available. The improved SG method for measuring the gold content of coins has been described in detail by British Museum scientists who introduced the new immersion liquid.7 The method is relatively simple and only requires an analytical balance with an accuracy of at least 1 mg which, when not available on site, can be easily transported to where the coins are located. In addition, a large body of SG data for the coinage of the Visigoths from the same period is now available for comparative purposes.

Another factor relating to the choice of analytical method is that preliminary research indicated that some of the coins of Spania have a gold content of less than 80 %, similar to those of the Visigothic regal period, where surface enrich-ment can be a major problem. When gold is alloyed with baser metals, surface enrichment may occur due to baser constituents, in this case mainly silver, being leached out by damp and acidic soil during burial, or by cleaning which is commonly performed by dealers and collectors in a weak acid, leaving a surface layer enriched in gold.8 Because SG is a bulk analysis method, it samples the whole coin and gives a more accurate value for the gold content than surface methods (such as X-Ray fluorescence) that depend on the depth to which they penetrate below the surface of the coin and hence overcome the varying effects of surface enrichment.

Except for Grierson’s original observation that the color, especially of later issues, indicated they were of low fineness similar to those of the Visigoths, no analytical studies have been made of the coinage attributed to the Byzantines in Spain. Several analytical studies have, however, been published for the Visigothic coinage of the period and results using surface methods have been reported using the Milliprobe or XRF method, 9 the PIXE method,10 the EDAX

7. W. A. Oddy and M. J. huGhes, The Specific Gravity Method for the Analysis of Gold Coins, in E. T. hall and D. M. Metcalf (eds.) Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigation of Ancient Coinage, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication no. 8, London, 1972, pp. 96-107 (henceforth Oddy and huGhes ); A. Oddy, The Analysis of Coins by the Specific Gravity Method, in W. A. Oddy and M. R. cOwell (eds.) Metallurgy in Numismatics: Vol. 4, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication no. 30, London, 1998, pp. 147-157.

8. P. T. Kyser and D. D. clarK, Analyzing and Interpreting the Metallurgy of Early Electrum Coins, in M. S. BalMuth (ed.), Hacksilber to Coinage, New York, 2001, pp.112-113.

9. D. M. Metcalf and F. schweizer, Milliprobe analyses of some Visigothic, Suevic and other gold coins of the early middle ages, Archaeometry, 12, 1970, pp. 173-188 (henceforth Metcalf and schweizer).

10. D. M. D. M. Metcalf, J. M. P. caBral and L. C. alves, Sixth-Century Visigothic Metrology, Some Evidence from Portugal, AJN 3-4, 1991-1992, pp. 65-90 (henceforth Metcalf et al.); M. GOMes Marques, J. M. PeiXOtO caBral and J. rOdriques MarinhO, Ensaios Sobre História Monetária da Monarquia Visigoda, Porto, 1995 (henceforth Ensaios) and G. cOres, J. M. PeiXOtO


RN 2011, p. 351-401

method,11 and the Proton Activation method.12 The only major published study using a bulk method are the specific gravity values reported for the Fitzwilliam Museum collections.13 However, Lauris Olson working at the ANS in 1987 measured the specific gravity of some 300 Visigothic coins in that collection. Although he never published the results they were subsequently included in a doctoral thesis at the University of Toronto by Andrew Kurt.14 The authors of this paper have also measured specific gravities of Visigothic coins over a number of years and during this study an attempt was made to include more Visigothic coins from the relevant period so a large data base would be available to compare with the postulated ‘Byzantine’ coinage of Spania.

While surface analysis using modern instrumental analytical methods has the advantages of being more precise for the area and depth of the coin that they measure, and is able to detect and measure the concentrations of other metals, they can vary greatly in their results due to the effects of surface enrichment when the gold content is low. The pseudo-imperial coinage of the Visigoths from its beginning in the reign of Anastasius until well into the reign of Justinian (527-565) was of relative high fineness.15 However, the gold content of later Visigothic coinage fell below 90 % and by the end of the period being studied was in the 60-80 % range where surface enrichment can be a major problem.

Cores et al.16 reported the analysis of 11 coins of Reccared II (621) using the surface PIXE method. Because the reign of Reccared II was very short and close to the date when the Byzantine enclave in Spain was finally overrun with

caBral, l. c. alves and P. Bartlett, Visigothic mint practice, March 621: What can the coins of Reccared II tell us?, in M. c. hiPólitO, d. M. Metcalf, J. M. P. caBral, M. crusafOnt i saBater (eds.), Homenagem a Mário Gomes Marques, Sintra, 2000, pp. 195-218 (henceforth cOres et al.).

11. J. vicO MOnteOliva, M. c. cOres GOMendiO and G. cOres uría, Corpus Nummorum Visigothorum, Madrid, 2006, pp. 83-108.

12. M. Guerra, Em busca da origen do ouro dos Visigodos atraves dos seus elementos traço, in M. c. hiPólitO, d. M. Metcalf, J. M. P. caBral, M. crusafOnt i saBater (eds.), Homenagem a Mario Gomes Marques, Sintra, 2000, p. 223-251 (henceforth Guerra)

13. P. P. GriersOn, Visigothic metrology, NC 13, 1953, pp. 74-87 and P. GriersOn and M. BlacK-Burn, Medieval European Coinage: 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th – 10th centuries), Cambridge, 1986, pp. 436-451 (henceforth MEC). The differences in values reported by the two studies were due to improvements in the methods in the second study such as the use of the immersion liquid perfluoro-1-methyl decalin with double the density and very low surface tension compared to water. The analyses reported in MEC were carried out by Andrew Oddy.

14. A. A. Kurt, Minting, State and Economy in the Visigothic Kingdom ca. 418-ca. 713, A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Centre for Medieval Studies, Toronto, 2001, Appendix I, pp. 223-225 and pp. 238-247 (henceforth Kurt).

15. Ensaios, op. cit. n. 10, reports surface measurement of 20 coins of Justinian with an average of 95.6 % gold (table II, p. 60). The SG measurements of 7 coins of the Ashmolean Museum reported here (see below figure 3 and appendix II) and 8 coins from the Fitzwilliam collection in MEC averaged 92.9 % gold, indicating little difference (<3 %) in the two methods at this level of fineness and suggesting a standard between 93 % and 96 %.

16. cOres et al., op. cit. n. 10.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

the recapture of Cartagena (c. 624), the Reccared II coinage serves as an end point for the comparison of the metal content of the two coinages. Ten of the original coins of Reccared II measured by the PIXE method were reanalyzed using the SG method and the differences compared (figure 1). The average gold content of the ten coins measured by the PIXE method was 74 % while that of the SG method gave an average of 64 %, a 10 % difference17 with a range of 5-18 %. At the time the analysis of the coins of Reccared II was made using the PIXE method, a few other coins were also tested, including one ‘Byzantine’ coin (No. 3018) in the name of Heraclius of the type believed to have been minted in Spania. This measured 80.4 % gold, 18.7 % silver, 0.8 % copper, and 0.1 % of iron. At the beginning of this study, the same coin using the equipment at the ANS gave a specific gravity value of 15.5 which corresponds to a gold/silver alloy of 70.1 % gold, or again 10 % lower than that given by the PIXE surface method. This is a considerable discrepancy even taking into account a possible negative error of up to 3 % in the SG method.19 The large mean difference and the wide variations (5-18 %) in gold content as revealed by the two analytical methods are undoubtedly due in large part to surface enrichment. Even different surface methods can give greatly varying results on coins with low gold content depending on how deeply they penetrate the coin’s surface.20 Coins of low fineness,

Mint No.21 Weight, g PIXE % Au SG % Au DifferenceAcci 1 1.40 75 64 11Acci 2 1.38 71 65 6Toleto 3 1.51 81 63 18Toleto 4 1.40 77 68 9Barbi 8 1.40 72 59 13Eliberri 9 1.52 66 60 6Eliberri 11 1.37 69 64 5Hispalis 14 1.44 76 67 9Emerita 15 1.49 78 68 10Emerita 16 1.40 79 66 13Average 1.43 74 64 10

Figure 1 - Comparison of PIXE and SG methods of measuring gold content of coins of Reccared II.

17. The difference in the means is statistically significant at the 99 % level.18. This No. and following refer to the Spania coins as listed in the Plates at the end of this paper.19. Oddy and huGhes, op. cit. n. 7. 20. M. f. araúJO, l. c. alves, J. M. P. caBrai, “Comparison of EDXRF and PIXE in the

analysis of ancient gold coins,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B 75 1-4, 1993, pp. 450-453. The two surface methods showed a good agreement for coins containing more than 94 % Au and a discrepancy reaching up to 15 % fineness between the PIXE and EDXRF methods, for Suevic and Visigothic coins 50 % to 80 % fine.

21. cOres et al., op. cit. n. 9.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

such as those of Reccared II, derived from hoards where the analyzed coin may have been located in the middle of the mass of coins in a container and not therefore subject to direct contact with the soil, and not subsequently cleaned, would undergo little enhancement while those coins intimately exposed to damp acid soil, or cleaned in acid, would undergo varying degrees of surface enrichment.

The SG method has a theoretical experimental error of 1 % but also a few practical problems which have been reviewed by Oddy and Hughes.22 The gold content is obtained using a conversion table derived from measurements on metal alloys of accurately known composition, in this case mixtures of gold and silver, but the coins may, in reality, contain other elements, in particular copper.

The PIXE measurements of the 10 coins of Reccared II23 and a single Byzantine coin of Heraclius from the Spanish mint (No. 29) gave concentration values for copper of 0.6 to 1.3 % (average of 0.9 %) for the Visigothic coins and 0.8 % for the Byzantine coin of Heraclius from Spania.24 This amount of copper would result in a slight negative error but not affect the conversion significantly.25 A second problem with the specific gravity method is that the coins need to be clean and any substance adhering to the surface such as dirt, encrustations, or dermatological grease from handling the coins, will lower the SG readings. All the coins in this study were examined for dirt, and lightly cleaned with soap and water when possible, although it is probably impossible to completely remove all foreign material without a harsher cleaning. The coins were degreased in acetone although the perfluoro-1-methyl decalin used as the immersion liquid is an excellent degreaser when the owners objected to using acetone.26 In the case of the coin of Heraclius (No. 29) some minor surface encrustations were noted and toward the end of the study the coin was cleaned in a weak acid removing the encrustations and possibly other less visible material which resulted in an increase in is SG equivalent to 1.5 % (see below, p. 357).

22. Oddy and huGhes, op. cit. n. 7.23. cOres et al., op. cit. n. 10.24. João Peixoto Cabral performed the PIXE analysis on the coin of Heraclius (No. 29) at the

Instituto Tecnolόgico e Nuclear, Sacavém, Portugal. Other studies of more than 300 Visigothic coins where Cu was measured rarely found concentrations greater than 2 % before 625. See Ensaios, Metcalf and schweizer, Metcalf et al., and Guerra. Ensaios measured 99 coins from Leovigild to Reccared II with an average of 1.1 % (range 0.4 to 1.8 %) using the PIXE method, while Guerra measured 26 of from Leovigild to Sisebut with an average of 1.6 % (range 0.2 to 3.1 %) using the Proton Activation method, which penetrates deeper than the other methods, and hence may be more accurate than the PIXE method. The BnF coin of Heraclius from Spania (No. 28) was recently analyzed by Maryse Blet-Lemarquand (CNRS, IRAMAT, Orléans) using Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) method which gave a concentration of 1.2 % for copper (see below, p. 373).

25. Oddy and huGhes op. cit. n. 7, p. 87, state that “it appears that the presence of up to 5 per cent of copper lowers the calculated gold content by about 3.5 percent, …”.

26. To avoid problems of contamination and temperature effects on its density, the density of the liquid was calculated on each run from the dry weight and immersion weight of two 1/20 oz Canadian Maple leaf coins, 0.99999 fine, weighing 1.5945 and 1.5920 g.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

The coin of Heraclius from Spania (No. 29) was used as a standard and measured in several locations, including an independent measurement by Duncan Hook at the British Museum. In addition, several Visigothic coins have been measured twice by different people. The repeated measurements of the coin of Heraclius before cleaning ranged from 69.6 % to 70.5 % with a mean of 70.2 % and the value reported by the British Museum was 70.2 %. After cleaning, the coin was measured on 8 occasions (as customary each with three repetitions) giving values ranging from 71.4 % to 71.9 % with a mean of 71.7 %. In 2001, while measuring coins of the mint of Emerita of Sisebut and Suinthila at the ANS without the knowledge that Lauris Olson had measured some of them previously, twelve of the same coins were measured again. The second measurement of the twelve coins using the same equipment and technique, except for the immer-sion liquid,27 gave differences in gold values ranging from -1.1 % to +1.0 % gold with an average difference of 0.3 % gold (figure 2). We believe that on a practical basis the SG method gives consistent results that rarely differ by more than 1 % in the measured gold content. However, although the results are consistent, the measured value may result in a negative error up to 3 % because of problems such as incomplete cleaning and small concentrations of other elements mentioned above.28

L. Olson29 in 1987 P. Bartlett in 2001 DifferenceRuler Mint HSA No. Weight, g SG Au % Weight, g SG Au % Au %

Sisebut Emerita 8109 1.45 15.30 68.20 1.455 15.37 68.90 0.70Sisebut Emerita 16119 1.51 15.30 68.20 1.506 15.29 68.10 - 0.10Sisebut Emerita 16108 1.43 15.30 68.20 1.428 15.29 68.10 - 0.10Sisebut Emerita 16454 1.48 15.70 72.10 1.482 15.82 73.20 1.10

Suinthila Emerita 16178 1.42 14.60 61.00 1.416 14.68 61.80 0.80Suinthila Emerita 16184 1.43 14.90 64.10 1.488 14.80 63.00 - 1.10Suinthila Emerita 16186 1.42 14.70 62.00 1.424 14.76 62.60 0.60Suinthila Emerita 16192 1.43 14.90 64.10 1.431 15.00 65.10 1.00Suinthila Emerita 16193 1.52 14.50 59.90 1.515 14.59 60.90 1.00Suinthila Emerita 16208 1.43 1.47 62.00 1.433 14.70 62.00 0.00Suinthila Emerita 16196 1.51 14.90 64.10 1.512 14.93 64.10 0.00Suinthila Emerita 16453 1.50 14.60 61.00 1.439 14.54 60.30 - 0.70

Average 1.46 13.85 64.58 1.460 14.98 64.84 0.26

Figure 2 - SG Measurements of the same coins in the ANS at two different times by different people.

27. OlsOn used trifluorotrichloroethane, another fluorocarbon.28. Oddy and huGhes, op. cit. n. 7, concluded that taking into consideration all possible

sources of error, “the actual gold content of a cleaned coin, which can be assumed to contain little or no copper, probably lies between the results found from the silver-gold calibration data and a figure which is 3 per cent higher.”

29. Kurt, op. cit. n. 13.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Comparison of the intrinsic values between the Byzantine coinage of Spania and the Visigothic coinages

From Catalogue Summary of measurements of Byzantine coins of SpaniaEmperor Dates No. of Coins Au % Weight, g Intrinsic Value, gJustinian 552-565 3 of 5 for SG 89.8 1.48 1.33Justin II 565-578 4 of 4 88.5 1.33 1.18Maurice 582-602 5 of 5 83.1 1.41 1.17Phocas 602-610 3 of 5 for SG 72.1 1.42 1.02Heraclius 610-626 8 of 11 for SG 72.3 1.41 1.02

From Appendix I Summary of measurements of Byzantine coins from ConstantinopleEmperor Dates Sample Au % Weight, g Intrinsic Value, gJustinian 552-565 8 96.7 1.48 1.43Maurice 582-602 10 97.2 1.44 1.40Phocas 602-610 9 94.7 1.46 1.38Heraclius 610-626 8 97.0 1.44 1.40

From Appendix II Summary of measurements of Visigothic coins Ruler Dates Sample Au % Weight, g Intrinsic Value, gJustinian 552-565 16 93.4 1.38 1.28Justin II-Leovigild 565-573 32 88.8 1.41 1.21C-3 Leovigild? c. 573-576 15 91.5 1.30 1.19Leovigild IR c. 576-580 10 77.0 1.31 1.01Leovigild COS > 578-584 18 73.3 1.26 0.93Leovigild FB 584-86 26 74.0 1.46 1.08Reccared I 586-601 104 72.7 1.48 1.08Liuva II 601-603 13 71.6 1.47 1.06Witteric 603-609 31 70.8 1.46 1.03Gundemar 609-612 20 69.2 1.44 1.00Sisebut 612-621 105 66.4 1.44 0.96Reccared II 621 12 64.8 1.44 0.93Suinthila (< 625) 621-624 68 62.4 1.42 0.89

Figure 3 - Summary of measurements of specific gravity from catalogue and appendices I - II.

Justinian

During the later half of the reign of Justinian I (527-565) the Byzantines arrived in the Iberian Peninsula (c. 552). Five genuine tremisses are reported for Justinian I for the mint believed to have been established in Spania as well as one suspected contemporary counterfeit.30 The SG of the three genuine and

30. vizcaínO sánchez, op. cit. n. 3, p. 713, reports a tremissis of Justinian found in Fitero near Pamplona but we believe it may be of the type produced by the Lombards in Italy and similar to MEC 294 and do not include it here, however its SG should be tested as MEC 294 was 97 % Au, higher than the Spania coinage of Justinian (90 %).


RN 2011, p. 351-401

one counterfeit were measured, giving a mean value of 90 % gold content for the genuine coins and 81 % for the suspected forgery.31

For the Visigoth coinage, MEC reports SG measurements for eleven tremisses (MEC Nos. 192-202) with the legends interpreted as reading Justinian, of which we have excluded three, two of which have Tomasini reference numbers, from the calculations.32 In addition to the nine remaining coins in the MEC sample, seven previously unpublished measurements of coins attributed to Justinian from the Ashmolean Museum are included (figure 3 and Appendix II). The gold content of the 16 Justinian coins averaged 93 %. The gold content as determined from SG measurements of eight tremisses of Justinian from the ANS collection attributed to Constantinople (figure 3 and Appendix I) averaged 96.7 % gold and the difference from the Visigothic coins is statistically significant at the 99 % level.33

The average gold content of the three Byzantine coins struck in Spania for Justinian is 7 % lower than those struck in Constantinople and 3 % lower than that of the contemporary Visigothic coinage. However, it is difficult to know whether the 3 % difference is significant, especially with results for only 3 coins, and it is not much greater than the standard deviation of 2.2 for the Visigothic coins or the theoretical error in the measurements. Furthermore, the comparison with the Visigothic coinage is difficult because it is not possible to distinguish the coins of the Visigoths in the name of Justinian for the period after 552 from the earlier ones. It is possible that there was a small reduction the fineness of the

31. GriersOn, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 310-311, believed this coin from the ANS collection to be a contemporary forgery which its low fineness confirms.

32. W. J. tOMasini, The Barbaric Tremissis in Spain and Southern France. Anastasius to Leovigild, ANSNNM 152, New York, 1964 (henceforth tOMasini), considered MEC 192 (Tomasini 213) as a JI 3 type of Justin I, MEC 201 (Tomasini 333) is suspected of being a contemporary forgery while MEC 202 has very blundered legends making its attribution difficult. tOMasini is the major study of the Visigothic Imitative or Pseudo-Imperial coinage of the VPW (Victory Palm Wreath) type which was the standard currency after their retreat from Aquitaine in c. 509. Tomasini based his study on 660 coins of the VPW type, dividing them into 94 groups first by name of the emperor (A = Anastasius, JI = Justin I, JAN = Justinian and JII = Justin II, C with CURRU in legends, IR with the name of Leovigild in the Obv. and INCLITUS REX in the Rev., and H with the name of Hermenegild) and then into groups with Arabic numbers and lettered subgroups based on style. The two types following the VPW issues were first the COS (with a cross on steps in the reverse) and then the FB (with facing busts on both Obv. and Rev.) both starting in the reign of Leovigild and the latter lasting through the other reigns covered in this study.

33. C. MOrrissOn, J.-n. BarrandOn et al., L’or monnayé I. De Rome à Byzance : purification et altérations, CEB 2, Paris, 1985, p. 203, found that the gold content of the six Constantinople solidi from the Bibliothèque Nationale analyzed by proton activation averaged 98.25 %. Proton activation analyzes a deeper part of the coin than XRF (down to 240 micrometers instead of between 5 and 50 micrometers) but it has been recently observed on Merovingian coins that the fact that it still does not reach the core of the coin could result in too high gold values as in the present case (Maryse Blet-leMarquand, M. BOMPaire, Cécile MOrrissOn, Platine et plomb dans les monnaies d’or mérovingiennes: nouvelles perspectives analytiques, RN 166, 2010, pp. 185-187).


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Visigothic coins by the time the Byzantines began minting in Spania, and that the Byzantines followed the Visigothic standard at that time. The Visigothic coins of Justin II (565-578) averaged 90 %.34

The five Spanish mint Byzantine coins of Justinian average 1.48 g which is the same as the average weight of the seven tremisses from the Constantinople mint in the ANS collection. The average weights of the largest groups of JAN coins, with more than 10 coins (JAN 2-6 and JAN 8) reported by Tomasini, were slightly lower being in the range of 1.43-1.44 grams.35 Metcalf et al. suggest that there was a slight weight reduction of the Visigothic coinage c. 520 with the modal values dropping to between 1.41 and 1.45 from the previous values of c. 1.49.36 The average weight of the 16 coins in the MEC and Ashmolean samples was 1.38 but may be biased by four coins in the range 1.21 to 1.28 g without which the average is 1.42g. Sometime into the reign of Justin II, there was a definite and significant reduction in the weight standard of the Visigothic coinage to 1.3 grams37 and it may be the four lower weight coins reflect this change if it began close to the end of the Justinianic period or if some of the Justinian coins in the sample were minted in the early reign of Justin II when this change had occurred.

In discussing our attempts to understand the coinage of the Byzantines and Visigoths we must not confuse our attempts at weighing the coins and analysing gold content by Specific Gravity or the various radiation techniques with the ability of the merchants and officials who used the coins to determine their weight and fineness. The normal method of weighing in the 6C was a swinging balance of the type which continued in use into the twentieth century when it was replaced by electronic balances. Experiments with an eighteenth century swinging balance have shown that it can detect a change of 0.05g and thus is capable of weighing with an accuracy of +/- 0.1g (i.e. it can distinguish between, for example, 1.3g and 1.4g). Byzantine coin weights are well known 38 and were made to check the weight of the gold coins, so the smallest that has been identified is that for weighing a tremissis.

As far as assaying is concerned, the method used by merchants was a touch-stone.39 This is a black pebble of sedimentary rock containing some silica, of

34. See below, p. 388-389.35. tOMasini, op. cit. n. 32. 36. Metcalf et al., op. cit. n. 10, pp. 71-72.37. GriersOn and BlacKBurn, MEC, n. 11, p. 50, attribute this reduction to a change to the

Germanic weight standard of 20 grains. 38. S. S. Bendall, Byzantine Weights: An Introduction, London, 1966; C. entwistle, Byzantine

weights, in A. E. laiOu (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 611-614.39. A. A. Oddy, Assaying in Antiquity, Gold Bulletin 16 (2), 1983, pp. 52-59; W. A. Oddy, The

Touchstone: the oldest colorimetric method of analysis, Endeavour (New Series) 10 (4), 1986, pp. 164-166; W. A. Oddy, The assaying of gold by touchstone in antiquity and the medieval world, in Chr. Eluère (ed.) Outils et ateliers d’orfèvres des temps anciens, Antiquités nationales, Mémoires 2, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1993, pp. 93-100.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

the types that would be classified today as tuffs, cherts and siltstone. These were often shaped into a flat or elongated tablet of stone.40 When a gold object, such as a coin, is rubbed on the surface of a touchstone it leaves a streak of the yellow metal on the surface. The color of the streak changes as the composition of the gold changes, getting less and less yellow as the fineness of the gold object diminishes. Touchstones were accompanied by a set of ‘touch-needles’ which are small pieces of gold alloys of accurately known composition. To effect an analysis, the touch-needles were also rubbed onto the stone one by one until a color match with the original streak was obtained. The coin then has the same composition as the matching touch- needle. Pliny (XXXIII, 126), writing in the first century A.D. mentions the use of the touchstone and tells us that it could detect silver or copper in gold to “a difference of a scruple.” As there are 24 scruples in a Roman ounce we can assume that a touchstone could distinguish between an alloy of, say, 20 carats (75 %) and one of 21 carats (79.17 %). According to Robert Halleux, who has also discussed the text of Pliny as well as that of Theophrastus, “the scripulari differentia can be understood as referring to the ounce as above but also as referring to the pound (12 ounces)” thus implying that, as Theophrastus indicated in another text, assayers could distinguish differences of 1/12th of a carat.41 In his comment on Theophrastus, Oddy rejected this implied increased accuracy and sided with Eichholz42 who thought that the text of Theophrastes is corrupt at this point. Support for an accuracy when using the touchstone of 1 part in 24 in the ancient and medieval world comes from a 13th century document describing the minting of coins in the Ayyubid mint in Cairo. This describes the manufacture of a set of touch-needles with gold content increasing by 1 carat from one needle to the next.43 This text is interesting from another point of view as it seems to be the first to mention the application of acid to the streak to observe the fading of the streak as the base metal (silver and/or copper) is dissolved. How much earlier acid was used in not known but it later became a standard practice so that expert assayers in the twentieth century are reported to have been able to distinguish down to ½ carat.44 Our opinion is that while in the outlying province of Spania, in the principal centers of Cartagena and Malaga well equipped and experienced merchants or mint employees may have been able to detect difference of down to 1/24 or 1 carat, the general population probably could not.

40. D. T. D. T. MOOre and W. A. Oddy, Touchstones: Some Aspects of their Nomenclature, Petrography and Provenance, Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 1985, pp. 59-80.

41. halleuX in CEB 2, p. 42 with refs.42. D. E. D. E. eichhOlz (ed.) Theophrastus. De Lapidibus, Oxford, 1965. pp. 118-119.43. M. M. levey, Chemical Aspects of Medieval Arabic Minting in a Treatise by Mansur ibn

Ba’ra, Japanese Studies in the History of Science, Supplement no. 1, Tokyo, 1971.44. T. Bertelè, Numismatique byzantine, Wetteren, 1978, p. 42, n. 51. E. Oberländer-Tarnoveanu

says that some specialists may even have distinguished down to 1/3 carat (RN 1996, p. 160, n. 26).


RN 2011, p. 351-401

In summary the first coins minted by the Byzantines in Spania in the name of Justinian were similar in fineness to those being minted by the Visigoths at the same time, but had a weight standard close to 1.5 g and similar to that of the Constantinople mint. The Visigothic standard was about 1/24 lower. The resulting average intrinsic values45 in the samples measured were 1.34 g for the Byzantine coins of Spania compared with 1.29-1.33 g for the Visigothic tremisses while the tremisses minted at Constantinople were significantly higher at 1.43 g. The Byzantine Spania coinage could probably have circulated along side the Visigothic without the difference in the intrinsic value being easily detectable.

It is noteworthy that a few solidi believed to have been produced by the Visigoths in the South of Spain, two of which are in the name of Justinian, are recorded in MEC (nos. 190 and 191) with specific gravity values corresponding to 98 and 99 % gold. Another solidus in the name of Justinian was reported to have a gold content of 98 % using the Induced X-Ray Emission method (PIXE).46 The notable higher fineness of the solidi compared with the tremisses that were presumably minted at the same time has been interpreted as targeting different monetary needs with the solidi made for use by merchants engaged in long distance trade in the Mediterranean.47 After Justinian, no pseudo-imperial solidi have been attributed to mints in Iberia and the Byzantines never struck this denomination in Spain, probably because it was no longer used in trade, and exchange between the two regions could have used the interchangeable tremisses.

Justin II and Tiberius

Four coins are known from the Byzantine mint in Spania under Justin II (565-578), all of which were analyzed giving a mean of 88.5 % gold. The average weight of the four coins was 1.33 g but there is wide variation with one of 1.47 g, similar to the coins of Justinian, two in the range of 1.37 to 1.38 g and the fourth with the very low weight of 1.10 g. This period falls during the last two years of the reign of the Visigothic king Athanagild (554-67), an interregnum of five months, the reign of Liuva I (568-571 or 573)48 and the first half of that of his brother, Leovigild (c. 569-586). It was during this period that several major changes in the Visigothic coinage took place involving reductions in the weights and finenesses, as well as changes in the design and the legends of the coins. The exact sequence of the changes in the Visigoth coinage has not been securely worked out and the dating for the first changes is uncertain, making a

45. Intrinsic value is the actual amount in grams of the gold contained in the coin (weight multiplied by gold content).

46. Metcalf et al., op. cit. n.10, pp. 80-83.47. Metcalf et al., ibid.48. Two different dates are recorded for the death of Liuva I in the Chronicles of Isidore of

Seville and John of Biclar, 573. John of Biclar is the preferred one.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

comparison with the Byzantine coinage of Justin II somewhat difficult.49 The first problem is to distinguish the coins in the name of Justin I from those of Justin II in those cases where the emperor’s name is clearly readable as Justin and not Justinian. During the whole period of the Visigothic VPW (Victory Palm Wreath)50 coinage there was a stylistic evolution in the obverse bust and the reverse victory as well as a gradual increase in the diameter of the flans, and Tomasini proposed to distinguish the coinage of Justin II from Justin I on stylistic grounds when the legends were legible. However, along with the stylistic developments, there was a degeneration in the legends and by the time of Justin II, many legends are severely blundered either out of ignorance on the part of the die sinkers or on purpose, thus making it difficult to distinguish between the late coins of Justinian and those of Justin II. Again, based on stylistic grounds, Tomasini attempted to separate most of the coins in his sample.

The Visigothic coins of VPW type for the Justin II period for which we have fineness measurements are given in Appendix II and summarized in figure 3. There are some Visigothic VPW coins with clear legends reading Justin that can be attributed to Justin II with weights in the range 1.4 to 1.5 g and with fineness around 90 % suggesting that there were no major changes at the very beginning of the period.51 This is supported by the eight coins of the JAN 8/C1 group with an average fineness of 96.6 % measured by the PIXE method,52 because Tomasini considered that the JAN 8 group was the immediate predecessor of the C1 group that came at the beginning of the reign of Leovigild. There are many other coins that Tomasini assigned to the reign of Justin II on stylistic grounds that have legends difficult to read or legends that are clear enough to read but do not contain an identifiable name. It would appear that one of the first changes may have been the deliberate decision not to use the emperor’s name which would have been a break with the ius monetae tradition. This would have been carried out by a strong ruler who was neither concerned about giving offence to the Byzantine Emperor nor had a need for his coinage to circulate outside his domains. Leovigild, after he became sole ruler in c. 573, seems the most likely candidate. In the years 570 and 571 Leovigild embarked on two important campaigns against the Byzantines and the fact that they were minting coins in the name of their emperor designed to circulate in the border areas may have been a factor in his decision to remove the name of the emperor from his

49. Our purpose here is not to rewrite Visigothic monetary history but to try to identify the major issues in circulation during the period of Justin II so as to have an idea of what the Byzantines in Spania would have seen as the weight and fineness of the coins in the adjacent kingdom. We will, in general, follow the only major published study by Tomasini, (op. cit., n. 32) for the period, although we realize the chronology and sequences are tentative (see Metcalf et al. op. cit. n. 10 and J. lafaurie’s critical review in RN 6 7, 1966, pp. 336-338).

50. See n. 32.51. e.g. tOMasini, Corpus Nos. 452, 502, 503.52. Metcalf et al., Ibid.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

own coinage and include his own.53 The most notable early example is the coins designated by Tomasini as the “CURRU” type with legends commonly reading CVRRV clockwise starting at the bottom and often retrograde on the right side, which he classified into 5 subgroups, with the C-1 group of 19 coins and C-3 of 25 coins being the most prominent.54 Other VPW coins have the clearly iden-tifiable name of Leovigild in the legends and include: (1) coins with the name of Justin in the obverse and Leovigild in the reverse legend, (2) coins with Leovigild in both the obverse and reverse legends, and (3) coins with Leovigild in the obverse and Victory in the reverse all of which are considered transitional and believed to have preceded or over-lapped with Tomasini’s important IR group of 28 coins bearing Leovigild on the obverse and INCLITUS REX on the reverse. To the IR coins of Leovigild can be added the four known genuine coins of very similar style with Hermenegild on the obverse and INCLITUS REX on the reverse. 55 Again, a deliberate decision must have been made to place the name of the Visigothic ruler in the legend. The changes in the legends could have been made in two steps; the first to exclude the emperor’s name and later to include that of the Visigothic ruler. Possibly Leovigild began to remove the emperors name during the joint reign with his brother Liuva in 568-572 but did not use his own name until 573 when Liuva died and he became sole ruler. A two step change is suggested by some of the major Tomasini groups, in particular those designated C-3 and IR which Tomasini believed were sequential and minted at Toleto. He also suggested that the C-3 may have followed the C-1 and C-2 which developed out of the JAN-8, but he

53. See L. García MOrenO, Leovigildo, Unidad y Diversidad de un Reinado, Madrid, 2008, a recent book on this period. J. huffstOt, On the Possibility That Athanagild’s Name Appears in the Visigoths’ Coinage: Evidence from a late “Victory with Palm and Wreath” Coin and Tomasini’s Corpus, AJN 19, 2007, pp. 145-168 proposed that Athanagild’s name might have appeared on coins that have not yet been discovered. Athanagild is believed to have asked the Byzantine to aid him and, although he later fought them, he signed a treaty toward the end of his reign. Liuva only ruled a short time and then associated his brother with him and it could have been inconvenient for either to have placed their names on the coinage by themselves. Hence the change seems more likely to have occurred after Leovigild became sole ruler in 573. D. M. Metcalf, J. M. P. caBral, and L. C. alves, Sixth-Century Visigothic Metrology, Some Evidence from Portugal, AJN 3-4, 1991-1992, pp. 65-90.

54. tOMasini, op. cit. n. 32, pp. 165-166, suggested these were produced by Leovigild and dated groups C-1 and C-2 at the beginning of his joint reign with his brother in 568-573 and dated C-3 at c. 573 when he became sole ruler. For the C-3 type, several additional coins, including an unpublished hoard of some 20 coins, have appeared since 1964 and there are at least 50 now known with very little duplication of dies indicating it was a sizable coinage from a major or multiple mints.

55. R. PlieGO vázquez, La Moneda Visigoda, Vol. I, Historia Monetaria del Reino Visgodao de Toleto and Vol II, Corpus. Seville, 2009 (henceforth PlieGO vázquez), more recently catalogued 39 IR coins of Leovigild and 4 of Hermenegild with very little duplication of dies which indicates that it too was a significant coinage and from a major mint or multiple mints.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

does allow for other mints being involved in the IR coinage as well as in the C-4 and C-5. Metcalf et al. suggested the IR coinage could have been struck in the south due to the similarities in style between the Leovigild IR and the Hermenegild IR coins which would most likely have been minted in Hermenegild’s capital at Seville.56 If this is correct, some of the IR coins of Leovigild could have been minted in Seville before the revolt started in 579, at which time Hermenegild could have substituted his name.57 The large size of the IR coinage and its closeness in style to the C-3 would suggest it may have also been minted in other mints, including Toleto. What is certain is that it marked a distinct point in the Visigothic coinage when a new lower weight standard of 1.3 grams, present in the C-3 coinage, was combined with a lower fineness of 75 % (or 18 carats) and when the name of the ruler is clearly legible in the obverse legend. The introduction of a new standard was an important fiscal decision and more likely to have been made by a strong ruler in control of most of the kingdom, such as Leovigild in the years after 573 when he was sole ruler.

In the last of the victory coinage, known from one coin of Toleto and two of Cesaragusta, the mint name was placed in the reverse legend.58 The victory tremissis was immediately followed by the COS (cross on steps) type (with the victory replaced by a cross on steps) and the name of the mint in the reverse legend, a change that would have taken place after the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (late 578-582) who introduced the Byzantine solidus with the cross on steps reverse. The final change to a facing bust on both sides is believed to have been introduced by Leovigild in 584 and continued through the rest of the period of the Byzantine enclave and up to 649. Toleto was the Visigothic capital and would have been the major mint for Leovigild, as indicated by the pre-dominance of coins in his name from Toleto after the mint name was added.

56. Metcalf et al., op. cit. n. 10, p. 68; also Tomasini, op. cit. n. 32, p. 133, states these coins (his H 2) “exactly duplicate Leovigild’s INCLITVS REX series”

57. Leovigild associated his two sons Reccared and Hermenegild in his rule in 573 but it is doubtful that Hermenegild would have used his name on the coinage until he actually revolted against his father in c. 578-9. There has been much written about this period and it has been proposed that another coin of Hermenegild with the reverse legend REGIA A DEO VITA came at the beginning of the revolt in 579 or 580 before any of the coins with his fathers name. See the recently published thesis of PlieGO vázquez, op. cit. n. 55, and Kurt, op. cit. n. 14, for detailed discussions. The coin type is extremely rare with only one genuine coin known (BM 1863-11-10-1), and its legend might more easily coincide with the religious legends of the cross on steps coins of Leovigild from Italica (dated c.583). The BM coin has a weight of 1.27 grams placing it in the period of the C-3, IR and COS coinages (see figure 4 below). The fineness of 87 %, as measured by Duncan Hook at the BM using the SG method, is a little low for the C-3 but high for the IR and COS coinages. However one rare coin that is hard to place is not of great importance for this study. That all the VPW coins with the name of Leovigild came in a period of just a few years before the cross on steps coinage was introduced is also difficult to explain.

58. PlieGO vázquez, op. cit. n. 55, Corpus nos. 26 and 41. There is also one transitional IR coin of Leovigild with the Cross on Steps instead of the Victory found with 19 COS coins of Leovigild in Merida, ibid. no. 18.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

They then account for 30 % of the known coins, which rises to 46 % when combined with the mint of Elvora,59 located 70 km down river from Toleto and whose coins with mint names are identical in style. Generally following Tomasini, one possible chronological scenario that might have occurred at Toleto from Justin II through Leovigild would be:(1) late JAN 8 and possibly other early Justin II coins followed by C-1 and C-2 and, (2) the C-3, followed by (3) the IR victory coinage, immediately developing into (4) the COS and finally (5) the facing busts coinage.

Stage Type Weight Au %60 Intrinsic V.(wt. x %Au) Start date End date

1 VPW – (JAN 8 to C-1&2) 1.4-1.5 96 1.305 c. 565 c. 5732 C-3 1.3 92 1.183 c. 573 ?3 IR 1.3 75 0.975 ? c. 5804 COS 1.3 75 0.975 after 578 5845 Facing Busts 1.5 75 1.125 584 586

Figure 4 - Possible Standards in the Development of Visigothic Coinage Justin II to Leovigild.

During the reign of Justin II, if the Byzantines in Spania wanted to imitate the Visigothic coins they would have struck coins varying in composition from 92-96 % gold and 1.4-1.5 g in weight during the first stage of the coinage falling to coins of 75 % gold and 1.3 g in weight in the third. There is no way of dating the four coins of Justin II in our sample from Spania to compare them with the stages of the Visigothic coinage which are not easily datable themselves. How-ever, the weights of the coins from Spania in our sample do reflect a reduction from the time of Justinian in what could have been a response to the changes in the weight standard of the Visigothic coinage. Interestingly, the fineness and corresponding intrinsic values do not appear to have been significantly lowered to that of the third stage, the IR coinage. It is quite possible that the Byzantine coins of Justin II were minted in Spania before the Visigothic change to the IR coinage or before Byzantines observed the change.

Only one Byzantine coin is known for Spania for Tiberius (578-582); it is from the Gago collection now in the Municipal Archives of Seville. It was not possible to obtain permission to weigh and measure the specific gravity of that

59. Ibid., Corpus, Tabla 25, pp. 47-50.60. Fineness is estimated based on the assumption that a system of units of 1/24 like the

present carat system was in use and the values could be 23/24 (96 %) for the first stage and 22/24 (92 %) for the second stage.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

coin. The Gago collection is published with a photograph of the coin and its weight is recorded as 1 gram.61 While there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the coin the weight is well below the average values of the Visigothic coins of this period and should be checked and the specific gravity measured before drawing any conclusions.

Maurice

For the reign of Maurice Tiberius (582-602), five coins are reported for the mint in Spania, all of which were analyzed giving a mean value of 83 % for the gold content and a mean weight of 1.41 g. For the corresponding Visigothic coins, the COS (cross on steps) type was introduced by Leovigild sometime during the reign of Tiberius (578 to 582) and is then believed to have been changed again to the facing bust type in 584. This lasted throughout the rest of the period in which the Byzantines held Spania. The Visigothic facing bust coins minted from 584 to 602 would have been those in the name of Leovigild up to 586, followed by his son Reccared I who died at the end of 601 when his son Liuva II succeeded him (602-604). The fineness and weights of the cross on steps and facing bust coinages are summarized in figure 3 from the data presented in Appendix II. All five coins of Maurice from Spania are heavier than the weight standard of 1.3 grams of the Visigothic COS issue, as are three of the four coins of Justin II minted in Spania. It is possible they were all minted after 584 when the Visigoths began minting the facing bust type with a weight standard of 1.5 grams and the Byzantines in Spania were copying that standard. However they are slightly lower in weight than the mean of 1.47 g (believed to be from a standard of 1.5162) for our sample of 143 Visigothic facing bust coins circulating in Spain during this period (Leovigild to Liuva II) and it is possible that the Byzantines were using a standard of 23/24 (equivalent to a solidus of 23 siliqua). A sample of the 13 coins of Maurice from the mint of Constantinople in the ANS collection had a mean weight of 1.44 g which is also slightly less than the standard of 1.51 g (figure 3 summarized from Appendix I). Even if the Byzantines in Spania were using a slightly lower weight standard, individual coins in circulation by either side would have been very difficult to distinguish by weight alone. The mean gold content of 83 % is however 10 % greater for the Byzantine coins minted in Spania than our sample of 143 Visigothic coins of the facing bust type which averaged 73 % and the difference could have been detected with a touchstone. The sample of tremisses from Constantinople averaged 97 % Au which is, statistically, significantly higher than the Spania or Visigothic coinages. The combined fineness and weight results in intrinsic values of 1.17 g

61. F. Pérez sindreu, Catálogo de Monedas y medallas de oro del Gabinete Numismático Municipal de Sevilla, Sevilla, 1980.

62. MEC, p. 54.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

for the Byzantine Spania coins and 1.07 g for the Visigothic coins, again a 10 % difference in values. Why the administrators of Spania did not notice or, if they did, why they did not copy the fineness of the Visigothic coinage and what effect this might have had on the commerce between the two regions during the reign of Maurice needs to be interpreted.63

Phocas

Five coins are reported for the mint in Spania in the name of Phocas (602-610), of which three were analyzed giving a mean gold content of 75 % and a mean weight of 1.42 g.64 The equivalent Visigothic period is the reign of Witteric (603 to 609) and the very end of the rule of Liuva II and the first year of Gundemar (610-612). The fineness for the three Visigothic rulers averaged 72 % for Liuva, 71 % for Witteric and 69 % for Gundemar. The lowering of the fineness of the Spania coinage by 8 % between Maurice (83 %) and Phocas (75 %) was probably an attempt to approximate more closely that of the Visigoths but it was still about 5 % higher. The mean weight had not changed since Maurice and was 0.05 g lower that the sampled coins of Witteric (1.46) but only 0.03 g lower for the two mints (Hispalis and Eliberri) closest to the border. Interestingly, while the fineness of the 10 coins of Phocas in the ANS attributed to Constantinople are still of near pure gold (97 % gold by the SG method),65 they averaged 1.41 g, nearly the same as the coins of Spania. The resulting intrinsic values of 1.07 g for the Spania mint coins for Phocas and 1.03 g for the coins of Witteric are quite similar.

Heraclius

Eleven coins of Heraclius (610-641, c. 624 for Spania) are reported for the mint in Spania of which eight were analyzed giving a mean fineness of 72 % gold and a mean weight of 1.41 g. This period corresponds principally to the reign of Sisebut 612-621 but would also have overlapped with Gundemar (609-612) especially if Spania came under the control of Heraclius during his revolt in late 608 in North Africa. Sisebut, early in his rule, recaptured most of the remaining Byzantine enclave but then established a peace treaty with Cesario,

63. It may be hypothesised, as suggested by Jean-Pierre Callu (personal communication) that the Byzantines could have intended to be thus offering to the military a salary in a higher value coin as an incentive against defecting to the Visigoths. One case of defection is reported in the Chronicle of John of Biclar, 17, where Assidona was captured at night by treachery and the garrison put to the sword in 571.

64. Mean of 1.40 g if the recorded weight for No. 2, the Tolstoi coin, is included65. The only solidus of Phocas analyzed in CEB 2 by PA resulted in 98 % Au, 1.62 %Ag,

0.4 % Cu. The average determined by Bertelè’s and Grierson’s SG analyses was 95.2 % (CEB 2, p. 205).


RN 2011, p. 351-401

the Magister Militum Spaniae, in c. 615.66 The fall of large areas of Spania in this period may account for the burial of the relatively high number of coins of Heraclius. The remaining areas of Spania were overrun in c. 624 by Suinthila (621-631). Reccared II, the son of Sisebut ruled for a few months after the death of his father in 621. From figure 3, summarized from appendix II, it can be noted that the sample of 31 coins of Witteric had an average fineness of 71 % gold which fell to 69 % for the sample of 20 coins of Gundemar and dropped further to 66 % for Sisebut and Reccared II. As was the case with Maurice and Phocas, the fineness of 72 % for the coins of Heraclius from Spania is slightly (3-6 %) higher than those of the contemporary Visigothic rulers to 621, but would have been difficult to detect with a touchstone. If there were any coins minted after 621 in Spania there is the possibility the Byzantines might have attempted to duplicate the intrinsic value of the first coins of Suinthila and, for that period, we have included a sample of coins of Suinthila from the hoard found at Las Fuentes de Andalucía buried early in his reign.67 These have a mean of 62 % gold which is 10 % lower than the coins of Heraclius from Spania. The sample of eight of the nine coins of Heraclius from Constantinople had a mean fineness of 97 %, significantly higher than the Visigothic or Byzantine coins from Spania.

The mean weight for the Byzantine coins of Heraclius from Spania (1.41 g) is very similar to that of Maurice (1.41 g) and Phocas (1.42 g) from Spania as well as Sisebut (1.43 g), all of which are also similar to the sample from Constantinople (1.44 g). The resulting intrinsic value for the Byzantine coins of Spania for Heraclius (1.02), while similar to Witteric (1.03) and Gundemar (1.00), is some 7 % greater than that measured for the sample of coins of Sisebut and Reccared II (0.95). This could be explained if the coins were minted early in the reign of Heraclius or if the information the Byzantines used to adjust their coinage to that of the Visigoths was taken from a circulating sample of earlier coins. The two coins of Heraclius (Cat. Nos. 30 and 31) with the lowest intrinsic values (0.94; 0.91), with the latter approaching that of Suinthila (0.89), are each from different pairs of dies while the other nine coins (Cat. Nos. 21-29) are all from the same die set. The style of the die pair used for the nine coins is very similar to that of the single die set of Phocas, especially the obverse die, and they were presumably made by the same engraver at the same place, while the other two sets (Cat. Nos. 30 and 31) are noticeably cruder and might have come toward the end of the Byzantine presence in Spania when the enclave was under great pressure.

66. M. valleJO Girvés, Bizancio y la España Tradoantigua (ss. V-VIII): Un capítulo de la historia mediterránea, Alcalá, 1993, pp. 298-303.

67. cOres et. al., op. cit. n. 10, suggested a terminus post quem of c. 622, p 197; A. walKer, Identification of the coinage of Reccared II in Numismatics – Witness to History, IAPN, 1986, gives a date of “ca. 625 at the latest”, p. 77, fn. 16 and in a personal communication suggested 623.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Figure 5 - The weight of the Spania coinage compared with the Visigothic coinage and that of the Byzantines from the mint of Constantinople.

Figure 6 - The average gold content of the Spania coinage compared with the Visigothic coinage and that of the Byzantines from the mint of Constantinople.

Years

Wei

ght (

g)

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630

1.48

1.41 1.411.41

1.42 1.43

1.481.47

1.46

1.44 1.441.44

1.451.451.46

1.38

1.33

1.30

1.24

1.31

Coinage of Spania

Byzantine Coins from Constantinople

Visigothic Coins

Years

Gol

d (%

)

50

55

60

65

70

75

85

80

90

95

100

550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630

89.8 %

93.4 %

96.7 %

88.8 %88.5 %

77 %

74 %72.8 %72.7 % 71.6 %

70.8 %

75.5 %

72.3 %

69.2 %

66.2 % 65.6 %

62.7 %

91.5 %

97.2 %

83.1 %

94.7 %

96.8 %

Coinage of Spania


Visigothic Coins


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Figures 5-7 shows the values of average weight, gold content and intrinsic value for the three coinages (Byzantines in Spania, Visigoths and Byzantine mint in Constantinople). They demonstrate that the Spania mint coins of Maurice, Phocas and Heraclius are 5-10 % finer than the contemporary Visigothic coins (10 % for Maurice, 5 % for Phocas, and 6 % for Heraclius). The fineness of the Visigothic coinage was falling at the same time. Apparently the Byzantines in Spania were tracking this decline but lagged behind. This can, in part, be explained if they were sampling Visigothic coins in circulation or were remint-ing Visigothic coins that had been minted somewhat earlier.

Years

Intr

insi

c Va

lues

(g)

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

555 565 575 585 595 605 615 625 635

1.43

1.40 1.40

1.39

1.28 1.25

1.19

1.01

1.08

1.081.06

1.03

1.00

0.95

0.95

0.900.91

1.33

1.181.17

1.07

1.02

Coinage of Spania


Visigothic Coins

Figure 7 - The average Intrinsic Values in grams of the Spania coinage compared with the Visigothic coinage and that of the Byzantines from the mint of Constantinople.

Trace Elements

All metals and alloys produced in antiquity contain very small amounts of other elements whose presence was unknown at the time of production. These are known today as ‘trace elements’ and usually originate as impurities in the ore that was used. When two or more metals are mixed to make an alloy, the trace elements in the metals also pass into the alloy. Trace element patterns in newly smelted metal may, occasionally, be used to identify the source of the ore, but once a metal has been added to another to form an alloy, or has been used as scrap in making a new object, the mixing of trace elements almost invariably means that connection to a potential source becomes impossible.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Gold, silver and copper/bronze were continuously recycled in antiquity; thus unless there is a good reason to think that metal has come directly from smelting (as in the case of the Athenian silver coinage made with silver from the mines at Laurion), trace elements are mainly of interest for picking out artefacts where an unusual trace element pattern may signify a modern forgery. However, where a large number of analyses are available it is sometimes possible to use statistical methods to separate the artefacts into groups. The meaning of the groups can only be determined if other factors come into the equation, such as differences in coin legend or style.

Trace element analysis is available for only one of the Spania coins, a tremissis of Heraclius in the BnF (BNC 1 = Schlumberger 2580) (No. 28), which has been analyzed by Maryse Blet-Lemarquand at the CNRS, IRAMAT, Orléans, using Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry.68 The graph (figure 8) of the time of laser ablation versus fineness for the Heraclius Spania coin in Paris levels off at 77.8 % gold at 200 seconds, at a depth of about 0.2 mm, which is close to the SG measurement of 79 %. The initial part of this graph clearly demonstrates the effect of surface enhancement.

Coin No. 30 also of Heraclius from Spania was measured for Cu and Fe by J. M. Peixoto Cabral at the Instituto Tecnolόgico e Nuclear at Sacavém, Portugal in 1998. Guerra analyzed the trace elements of 12 Visigothic coins of Leovigild to Sisebut (see figures 9 and 10 below) from mints in the provinces of Baetica and Carthaginensis adjacent to Spania, as well as Emerita and Elvora in SE Lusitania which had close ties to Toleto and Baetica. The ranges of values for the trace elements in the 12 Visigothic coins are quite wide and may indicate varied origins69 for the two principal metals, Au and Ag70, that were mixed to produce the Visigothic coins. The values of the coins of Heraclius from Spania generally fall within that range. The platinum content relative to the gold of No. 28 (BNC 1 = Schlumberger 2580) fits well within the defined area of Visigothic coins (figure 10)

68. For more information on the method see: B. Gratuze, M. Blet-leMarquand, J.-n. BarrandOn, Caractérisation des alliages monétaires à base d’or, BSFN 6, 2004, pp. 163-169 and l. dussuBieuX, l. van zelst, CLA-ICP-MS analysis of platinum-group elements and other elements of interest in ancient gold, Applied Physics A 79, 2004, pp. 353-356.

69. M. C. díaz y díaz, Metales y minería en la época visigóticas a través de Isidoro de Sevilla, in La minería Hispana e Iberoamericana I, Leόn, 1970, pp. 261-274. Although there are some Visigothic reference to the mining of gold, it is generally believed that the extensive mines in Roman times had been worked out by the the 6th century. The Visigoths had been amassing gold even before the sacking of Rome and recycling could have been significant. See also M. f. Guerra and t. calliGarO, Gold cultural heritage objects: a review of studies of provenance and manufactur-ing technologies, Measurement, Science and Technology 14, 2003, pp. 1527-1537. They believe that no new gold entered the Iberian Peninsula until the after the Islamic invasion based on trace elements in gold coins from the Visigothic and Islamic periods.

70. Although ancients appear to have used weight to make Au/Ag alloys, because silver is lighter, on an atom for atom basis it becomes the major component at < 75 % fineness and trace elements from the silver become significant.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

major elements % trace elements ppm

Au Ag Cu As Bi Fe Hg Ni Pb Pd Pt Sb Sn Zn

77,8 20,7 1,2 6 26 1310 69 6 332 14 160 6,6 741 271

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

0 50 100 150

“Core” of the coin:Au 77,8%; Ag 20,7%; Cu 1,2%

Surface of the coin:Au reaches 90%

Time of laser ablations

Au

Cu

Ag

Figure 8 - Gold, silver and copper concentration versus time of laser ablation for coin no.28.

major elements % trace elements ppmByzantine-Spania Method Au Ag Cu As Fe Pb Pd Pt Sb Sn ZnHeraclius (No. 28) LA-ICP-MS 77.8 20.7 1.2 6 1310 332 14 160 6.6 741 271Heraclius (No. 30) PIXE 80.4 18.6 0.8 nd 1000 nd nd nd nd nd ndVisigothsLeovigild-Elvora PAA 67.6 30.0 2.1 22 1122 812 12 169 16 722 389Reccared-I-Toleto PAA 75.2 22.8 1.7 23 23 592 95 113 19 824 315Reccared-I-Toleto PAA 76.8 21.3 1.6 nd 946 336 nd 122 25 1071 304Reccared-I-Ispali PAA 76.4 21.7 1.6 12 877 483 nd 100 19 706 573Reccared-I-Cordoba PAA 75.8 22.4 1.5 nd 775 460 nd 156 26 788 335Reccared-I-Eliberri PAA 73.1 25.3 1.5 nd 706 296 nd 146 nd 356 255Reccared-I-Emerita PAA 82.3 16.3 0.9 26 26 384 68 33 13 2835 220Reccared.-I-Elvora PAA 77.0 20.9 1.9 19 1022 529 12 124 10 878 275Reccared.-I-Elvora PAA 75.6 22.0 2.2 14 14 558 43 136 nd 480 220Liuva-II-Elvora PAA 75.4 22.5 1.9 14 712 589 33 110 9 651 570Gundemar-Elvora PAA 73.0 24.9 2.0 6 394 687 17 165 6 471 126Sisebut-Elvora PAA 76.2 22.1 1.6 5 500 600 10 100 10 600 200

Average 1.7 12 593 527 36 123 15.3 865 315Note: PAA values from Guerra excluding mints from Gallaecia and old Suevic areas, others unpublished

Figure 9 - Comparison of Trace Elements coins of Heraclius from Spania (Nos. 28 and 30) with those of Visigothic coins.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

and is below that of other Byzantine mints. This would be consistent with a theory that the Byzantines in Spania reused Visigothic coins when making the blanks for their own coinage.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

500 550 600 650 700Dates

Pt/

Au

Byzantines de Constantinople

Byzantines de Carthage

Byzantines d’Italie

Visigothiques

Royales de Marseille

Val. moy. de Marseille

Royales d’Arles

Royales de Banassac

Schlumberger 2580

Figure 10 - Platinum content of Heraclius Spania coin (arrow) compared with that of Visigothic and Merovingian coins (after M. Blet-leMarquand et al., RN 166, 2010, p. 193).

The Spania Coinage: distribution and production

The boundary of Spania, especially inland, was fluid and is poorly documented (See figure 11 for the area c. 589). It was fluid because from the beginning, although it is known that a written treaty between Athanagild and Justinian existed, copies were soon lost by both sides71 and the area was disputed and continuously fought over. A few fortified cities were held by each side but the frontier of some 800 km was not defended and has been described as “the land of no one”.72 It is poorly documented because very few cities are referred to in the records as belonging to one or the other side leading to speculation by historians. As well as the Balearic Islands, it is generally accepted that most

71. e. a. thOMPsOn, The Goths In Spain, Oxford, 1969, p. 332.72. P. P. díaz, En tierra de nadie: Visigodas frente a Bizantinos, Reflexiones sobre la frontera,

in Bizancio y al Península Ibérica, De la Antigüedad Tardía a la Edad Moderna, edited by I. Pérez Martín, P. Bádenas de la Peña, Madrid, 2004, pp. 37-60. I. wOOd, Defending Byzantine Spain: frontiers and diplomacy, Early Medieval Europe, 18/3, 2010, pp. 292-306.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

of the coast of Baetica was held by the Byzantines from Carthaginensis south to Baesippo, and possibly as far as Portus Gaditanus. Inland in Baetica, both Assidona and Saguntia were fought over and the legend “VICTOR BARBI” on a coin of Sisebut (Pliego No. 268) suggests that the enclave extended inland as far as Barbi73 but probably not much further because coins of Leovigild were minted at Roda which is 24 km to the north (Pliego No. 50). Eliberri was a common Visigothic mint from at least the time of Reccared I. In Carthaginensis the enclave is believed to have included the whole coast from Dianium (Denia) southwest to Baetica but how far inland is uncertain although the Chronicle of John of Biclar records a campaign of Leovigild in the area of Basti (Baza). We await the forthcoming publication of Professor M. Vallejo Girvés, entitled, Bizancio e Hispania, Una relación desconocida for updating the history.74

Figure 11 - Map of probable boundaries of Spania in c 589, modified from J. vizcaínO sanchez.75

The coins of the Byzantine province of Spania are extremely rare with only 32 known for the three quarters of a century the Byzantine province existed as an enclave along the coast of eastern and southern Iberia. Pliego Vázquez cata-logued some 2537 Visigothic coins with the names of rulers from c. 582 to 621,

73. P. BP. Bartlett and G. cOres, The coinage of the Visigothic king Sisebut (612-621) from the mint of Barbi, GN, 158/159, 2005, pp. 13-21.

74. M. valleJO Girvés, Bizancio e Hispania. Una relación desconocida, to be published by Akal in 2011. See for now: ead. Byzantine Spain and the African Exarchate, Jhb. d. Österr. Byz., 49, 1999, pp. 13-23.

75. J. vizcaínO sanchez, op. cit. n. 3, p. 48.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

and the actual number exceeds 5,000.76 However this comparison of the number of specimens is misleading because the vast majority of these Visigothic coins, probably more than 90 %, come from a few large hoards. Only one of the Byzantine gold coins of Spania is known from a hoard, that of Justin II (No. 10) found in Reccopolis with 90 mostly Visigothic VPW coins.77 It is possible that some of the nine coins of Heraclius from the same dies could have been found together,78 but the rest of the Spania coins appear to come from single or small finds. Aside from the coin of Justin II found in Reccopolis (Cat. No. 10), the only coins with definite provenances are one tremissis of Heraclius from Minorca (Cat. No. 32) and one of Maurice reported from Gades (Cadiz) (Cat No. 15). One obvious question is, if the coins were minted and circulated in Spania why are there not more finds documented from that area? One has only to look at Barral i Altet,79 as reviewed by Metcalf,80 which summarizes all the find spots for Visigothic coins up to 1976. Barral lists between 50 and 60 coins from small, mostly single, finds for the period of Justinian to Sisebut. Only one find location, that of a coin of Sisebut minted at Hispalis (Seville) (his No. 86) found near Eliberri (Granada), is even close to the border of Spania. For the 31 Byzantine coins of Spania, only the coin of Maurice reported to have been found at Gades (Cat. No. 16) is from a find close to, but probably not in, mainland Spania at the time of minting. The coin of Heraclius found on Minorca was 400 miles from the coast. Three of the coins in the British Museum are reported to have been

76. PlieGO vázquez, op. cit., n. 55. Three large hoards of Visigothic tremisses dominate the statistics for the for the first part of the seventh century: (1)The La Capilla hoard of some 1000 coins, (2) the Las Fuentes de Andalucía hoard with some 4300 coins and (3) a more recent unpub-lished hoard with a few coins first mentioned as possibly coming from the la Capilla hoard in, M. GOMes Marques, J. da cOsta, M. f. araulO, Tremisses visigodos inéditos, Actas del IV Congresso Nancional de Numismatica, Lisbon, 1998, pp. 99-118. Altogether some 1000 coins appeared on the market from the third source none were later than Suinthila. The large number of coins from Visigothic hoards and the scarcity of single finds compared, for example, with the Merovingian coinage with their large numbers of small finds (e. g. see D. M. Metcalf, Monetary circulation in Merovingian Gaul, A propos Cahiers Ernest Babelon, 8, RN 2006, pp. 337-393) may well represent an important difference in the usages of the two coinages as well as the current culture of those reporting finds from the two regions.

77. See tOMasini and Barral i altet for discussions of this hoard which was first catalogued by A. caBré, El tesorillo visigodos de trientes e las excavaciones del plan nacional de 1944-1945 en Zorita de los Canes (Guadalajara), Informes y Memorias de la Comisará General de Excavaciones Arqueolόgicas 10, 1946.

78. The two coins of Heraclius in Stuttgart are suspected of belonging together as well as Nos. 28 and 30 coins which both have similar encrustations and possibly the three coins from the William Mark collection.

79. Barral, op. cit., n. 3. 80. D. M. D. M. Metcalf, Some geographical aspects of early medieval monetary circulation in the

Iberian Peninsula, in Problems of Medieval Coinage in the Iberian Area 2, edited by M. G. Marques and M. crusafOnt i saBater, Aviles, 1986, pp. 307-324, in particular Fig. 2, p. 312. A few more finds are in vizcaínO sánchez, op. cit., n. 4.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

purchased from the collection of William Mark, who resided in Malaga from 1823 to 1836, but it is not certain that the coins came from there.81 The unique coin of Tiberius probably came from Baetica, but again there is no find data. There are several other coins that are undoubtedly from finds somewhere in Spain as they appear in Spanish collections like No. 21 in the Real Academia de Historia in Madrid, or in sales along with numerous Visigothic coins. The opposite case is not true; no Byzantine coins of Spania have been found outside the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands. Despite the fact that thousands of bronze coins from other imperial mints are found throughout the Mediterranean world including Spain, gold coins from provincial mints which were much less productive than the metropolitan one, are rarely found outside of the region where they were struck.82

Although there is no logical reason to believe the coins were not minted in Spania, the location of the mint is uncertain. It has been assumed by many writers to have been at Cartagena83 because of its long and important history as the capital of the Roman province of Carthaginensis and they believed it continued as the capital and the administrative center for the Byzantine province. This is based on extensive archeological excavations and, in particular, an inscription of Comenciolus, Magister Militum Spaniae, recording that he repaired the city gates in 589.84 Bronze Byzantine coins from other imperial mints have been found as well as what may have been a small locally produced anonymous 4 nummi denomination.85 An alternative mint location that has been suggested is Malaga, an important port and episcopal see where much archeological material has been found recently as well as fortifications dating to the Byzantine period. As mentioned, it is possible that the three coins of the Mark collection came from there. Numerous bronze coins from other imperial mints and small anonymous nummi once attributed to the Visigoths that may have been produced locally have also been found.86 The small denomination bronze coinages, possibly produced at Cartagena or Malaga, cannot be attributed to the official mint in Spania. It appears this mint only issued tremisses, undoubtedly at one location at a time

81. GriersOn, op. cit., n. 1.82. See for instance the limited diffusion of gold coins from Carthage, compared to the less

restrained one of its bronzes (C. MOrrissOn, L’atelier de Carthage et la diffusion de la monnaie frappée dans l’Afrique vandale et byzantine, Antiquité Tardive 11, 2003, pp. 65-84).

83. Known to the ancients as Carthago Nova and Carthago Spartaria.84. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum II, 3420, J. vizcaínO sanchez, op. cit. n 3, pp. 735-743,

pl. 94, p. 737.85. T. MarOt, Aproximación a la circulación monetaria en la península ibérica y las islas

Baleares durante lo siglo V y VI, RN 1997, pp. 157-190 and ibid pp. 687-725 for recent update including finds in Menorca and El Tolmo de Minateda (Elo/Eio).

86. B. MOra serranO, The Circulation of Bronze Currency in Málaga during the Sixth Century AD: new findings, NC 2009, pp. 424-430 and B. MOra serranO and C. Martínez ruiz, Un nuevo hallazgo de moneda bizantina en Malaca (Málaga): El conjunto monetario de calle Cañon-Postigo de los Abades, Saguntum 40, 2008, pp. 193-204.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

judging from the similarities of style for the coins of Maurice, Phocas and most of those of Heraclius (see above) and with only one known die in the case of Phocas. This fits very well with what we know about the location of Byzantine mints87 which were limited to a few major provincial capitals, unlike those of the Visigoths who minted in more than 100 cities. The Spania mint was an exception to the rule that reserved the issue of gold to the praefecturae. Logically Spania should have been supplied with coins from the mint of Carthage since it was part of the African prefecture and later exarchate. However Carthage did not produce the tremissis (or only exceptionally) and its solidi were of high fine-ness. Therefore a local mint was necessary to produce a gold coinage that would circulate along side that of the Visigothic coinage.

While we have made the case that it is not easy to compare the size of the Spania coinage with that of the Visigothic coinage on the basis of the number of extant coins, it still is important to have some idea of the relative sizes. The only way out would be to compare the number of dies used to produce the coin-ages. Some estimates of the die numbers have been made for Visigothic mints during the reign of Sisebut and, because of the large number of coins available, they give reasonable estimates for the order of magnitude of dies in use and high values for coverage (84-93 % for Hispalis and Emerita).88 The problem for the Byzantine mint is the small number of coins available. Combining the 31 known coins from Spania it might be possible to obtain some idea of the order of magnitude of dies in usage for the whole period. However looking at the number of dies and the number of coins known per die for the 31 coins there are two distinct diametrically opposed periods which lead to completely different results. In the 50 year period from Justinian to Maurice, with 15 known coins, there is only one die set which is represented by two coins among the 14 sets of dies. Coins of 13 of the dies are singletons. Applying Carter’s formula modified by Esty89 yields an estimate of 150 dies and Good’s formula 105. In contrast for Phocas and Heraclius in the last 25 years, if the mint operated to the end of Byzantine rule, there are 16 extant coins produced by only four sets of dies with two singletons giving estimations of five total dies with the Good formula and 6 with the Esty formula. The order of magnitude for the number of dies per year are 10 times greater for the first 50 years compared with the final 25 years. However, given the small sample no firm conclusions can be made and we must

87. M. F. hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Economy (ca.300-1450), Cambridge, 1985, pp. 398-405; id., From Public to Private: The Western Barbarian Coinages as a Mirror of the Disintegration of Late Roman Structures, Viator, 19, 1988, pp. 29-78 (= Id., The Economy, Fiscal Administration and coinage of Byzantium, Northampton, 1989, art. VII).

88. P. Bartlett, G. cOres uria and M. c. cOres GOMendiO, The use of dots as control marks in the coin legends at the Visigothic mint of Hispalis during the reign of Sisebut (612-621), XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática, Madrid, 2005, pp. 1127-1133 and PlieGO, op. cit. n. 55.

89. W. E. esty, Estimation of the size of a coinage: A survey and comparison of methods, NC 146, 1986, pp. 185-215.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

wait for more coins to appear to see if the estimates are reasonable.90 Even 100-150 dies for the first 50 years, is low compared with the Visigoths. For the small mint of Barbi, for example, it has been estimated that 13 obverse and 26 reverse dies were in use for the 9 year reign of Sisebut. Barbi is dwarfed by the estimates for the mint at Toleto of 166 obverse and 294 reverse dies for the same 9 years. Three dies per year used in the first fifty years of the Byzantine mint to a maxi-mum capacity of 20-30,000 coins would have been able to supply in the order of 60-90,000 tremissis coins for a value of 20-30,000 solidi per year. One of the main expenses would have been the army and at 10 solidi per year per soldier,91 less than 3,000 soldiers could have been paid without covering other expenses. If only 6 dies were in use for the final 25 years, very few expenses could have been covered by payments in gold.92

Conclusion

For all the uncertainties remaining, notably about the chronology of the Visigothic coinage, the analyses made over the last decade by the first of us, make clear that the fineness of the Byzantine gold from Spania was very close to that of the local and much more plentiful Visigothic issues. Two periods may be distinguished: the first, from Justinian to Tiberius II in which the Byzantine issues had a slightly greater intrinsic value and in which the issues were relatively larger than in the later period. In the second one, the Byzantine issues decline from some 83 % under Maurice, to 73 % under Phocas and 72 % under Heraclius, regularly above the values for the Visigothic coins now safely dated from ca. 580 onward. Close examination of these variations suggests that the Byzantine authorities wanted to issue coins able to be accepted at par with Visigothic ones in the circulation area as happened a bit later in Italy when the Byzantine possessions were also isolated from the capital.93

90. See F. Füeg’s observations in his comparison of the two stages of his corpus of nomismata (4,600 vs 1,170 specimens) (F. füeG, Vom Umgang mit Zufall und Wahrscheinlichkeit in der numismatischen Forschung, Rev. Suisse de Num. 76, 1997, pp. 135-160).

91. M. F. hendy, op. cit., n. 87, p 177 for references to the 12,000 d regular annual stipendium et donativum [ca 10 solidi] attested in 299/300. The regular annual annona was ca 4 solidi worth during the Early Byzantine period (T. MitthOf, Annona militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungs- und Heeresgeschichte des Römischen Reiches im 3. bis 6. Jh. n. Chr., Florence, 2001, p. 243).

92. vizcaínO sánchez, p. 692-3. Large denominations bronze coins from other imperial mints are known from the region but scarce and seem unlikely candidates for official payments. Of 14 folles and half folles with mint attributions tallied for Justinian to Heraclius from the mainland none are from Carthage which as mentioned above would have been expected to have supplied coins to Spania.

93. The special fonts used in this chapter for seal and coin inscriptions were first created by the late Professor Nicolas Oikonomides in 1986 and subsequently enriched by Glenn Ruby and the Publications Department of Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC. The editors are grateful to Dumbarton Oaks’ Program in Byzantine Studies for graciously releasing these fonts for use in scholarly publications and databases.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

PLATE I

The principal references are as given in the text. The coins are all gold tremisses. All dies are different unless noted.

In the name of Justinian Obv. Diademed bust right with half circle on top. Rev. Victory advancing right holding wreath in r. and gl. cr. in left. Star in field right.

1. Obv. \NIUSTINI NU=RRAU Rev. UISTObI USU=TObH Ex. SONOB 1.486 g (SG 17.29: 86 % Au) 18 mm. Grierson A(a), ANS 16-754 (ex Reinhart coll.), MIBE 27.2.2. Obv. \NIU=TINI NU=RRAU Rev. UISTObI USU=TbOH Ex. SONOB 1.506 g (SG 18.28: 93 % Au) 18 mm. Grierson A(a) as Justin II, BM-6754, MIBE 27.1. Same dies as 4.3. Obv. \NIU=TINI NU=RR[AU] Rev. UISTObI USU=TObH Ex. SOnOB 1.456 g (SG 18.07: 92 % Au). Grierson not included, Stuttgart 1582, MIBE 27.3.

Double struck?4. Obv. \NIU=TINI NU=RR[AU] Rev. UISTObI [ USU=]TObH Ex. SONOB 1.46 (SG not measured). Grierson not included, Galerie Moderne Bruxelles Sale,

May 1974, Lot 40, MIBE 27.4. Sames dies as 1. 5. Obv. \NIU=TINI NU[=RR]AU Rev. UIS[TO]bI SU=TObH Ex. SONOB 1.51 g (SG not measured). Grierson not included, NAC Sale 25, Lot 628, not listed in MIBE.6. Obv. \NIU=TInILnU RRAUS Rev. UISTON UUSU=TObUn Ex. SONOO 1.45 g (SG 16.72: 81 %Au) 16,5 mm. Grierson A as contemporary forgery, ANS-1956.25.43.

In the name of Justin II Obv. Diademed bust right. Rev. Victory advancing right holding wreath in r. and gl. cr. in left. Star in field right

7. Obv. \NIU TIII U RR US Rev. UI[STObI] USU T Ex. SONOB 1.38 g (SG 17.70: 89 %Au). DO BZC 2009.05, Stacks’sale 12 Jan 2009, from Füeg’s collection, from MMAG 64, Jan 1984, 325, from Lindpaintner, MIBEC 191, this coin ill.8. Obv. \nIuS[TI] nU RR S Rev. UISTObI SU T Ex. SONOB (retrograde) 1.37 g (SG 17.61; 88 %Au). J. Dwyer coll., ex CNG 61, 2002, no. 2171 (as Justinian), ex MMAG 81, Sept. 1995, no. 907 MIBEC 192, this coin ill.9. Obv. \nIU TInU IRIU (sic) Rev. UISTObILLUSU TSONO (Sic) No star. 1.47 g (SG 17.23; 85 % Au) 18 mm. MNAC 9857 (Amorόs94, no. 3). MIBEC 19.

94. J. aMOrós and a. Mata BerruezO, Catálogo de las Monedas Visgodas del Gabinete Numismático de Cataluña, Barcelona, 1952.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

10. Obv. \nIU TInT RR I Rev. UISTObIIUSU Ex. ONOI (sic) 1.10g (SG 18.00: 91 %Au) 20 mm. MAN (Cabré no. 5). Cited under MIBEC 19.

In the name of Tiberius II Obv. Diademed bust right. Rev. Cross potent

11. Obv. \NTIBebIU [=RR ]UST Rev. UITObI USI[ ] Ex. SOnOB 1g reported (weight and SG not measured), Grierson not included, Sevilla 45,

MIBEC VN14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


RN 2011, p. 351-401

In the name of Maurice Tiberius Obv. Diademed bust right with cross on half circle on top of diadem Rev. Victory advancing right holding wreath in r. and gl. cr. in left. Star in field

12. Obv. \Nm UbIS TIàERR U Plain diadem without cross. Rev. UISTObI USU¶ Ex. SONOB Star in field left.

1.42 g (SG 17.47: 87 %Au) 18 mm. Grierson A(a), BM-1904-0604-158, MIBEC 27b. 13. Obv. \NmA UbIS TIàERR U Rev. UISTObI USU Ex. SOnOB 1.41g (SG 17.45: 87 % Au) 19,5 mm. Grierson A(b), BM-7459, MIBEC 27a14. Obv. \Nm UbIS TIàERR U Rev. UISTObI USUTI Ex. SONOB 1.44g (SG 17.02: 83.5 %Au) 20 mm. Grierson A(c), BM 7460. 15. MIBEC 27a.15. Obv. \Nm UbI STIàERR U Rev. UISTObI USUT Ex. SONOB 1.40 g (SG 16.74: 81 %Au) 19,5 mm. Grierson A(d), ANS 1956.25.23 (ex. Reinhart coll.), MIBEC 27a.16. Obv. \Nm UbI STIàERRU Rev. UISTOb UéUTI Ex. SOMOB 1.41g (SG 16.31: 78 % Au) 19 mm. Grierson not included, Gimenez95 coll. (found

in Gades), MIBEC 27a, this coin ill.

95. F. GiMénez chOrnet, Una acuñaciόn bizantina en Spania, Congreso Nacional de Numis-mática, Madrid, 1989, pp. 463-465.

12

13

14

15

16


RN 2011, p. 351-401

PLATE II

In the name of Phocas Obv. Diademed bust right with cross on circlet on top of diadem. Rev. Cross potent on base and three steps

17. Obv. \N ÏOS =RR US Rev. UISTObI USU Ex. SONOB 1.39 g (SG 16.4: 78.5 % Au), 18 mm. Grierson A(a), BM-B.7462, MIBEC 36, this coin ill. Same dies as 18-21.18. Obv. as last Rev. as last. Not measured. Grierson A(b). Hermitage, Tolstoï 167 (1.35 g, 18 mm). MIBEC 36.

Same dies as 17 and 19-21.19. Obv. as last Rev. as last. 1.46 g (SG 16.07: 75.5 % Au), 18 mm. Grierson not included, DOC 136 (Salton-Schlessinger sale, 22.XI.1955, lot 88)

MIBEC 36. Same dies as 17-18 and 20-21.20. Obv. as last Rev. as last. Not measured. Grierson not included. Gotha, MIBEC 36.

Same dies as 17-19 and 21.21. Obv. as last Rev. as last 1.42 g (SG 15.70: 72.1 % Au). Grierson not included, RAH

189 (Madrid. Gift from the Duke of Almodovar, 1785)96, MIBEC 36, 5. Same dies as 17-20 but recut.

96. A. cantO Garcia, i. rOdríGuez casanOva, Un tremissis bizantino de Focas de la ceca de Cartagena, en la colleción de la Real Academia de la Historia, Archivo Español de Arqueologia 78, 2005, pp. 279-285. Idem, Monedas bizantinas, vandalas, ostrogodas y merovingias (Publicaciones del Gabinete de Antigüedades de la Real Academia de la Historia. II Monedas y Medallas 2.3) Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, 2006, p. 119, no. 189.

17

18

19

20

21


RN 2011, p. 351-401

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


RN 2011, p. 351-401

In the name of Heraclius : Diademed bust right with circlet on top (the central cross is now detached and breaks the inscription. Rev. Cross potent on one step with a right and v on left

22. Obv. \NEb S Iu=RR UT Rev. UISTObI U SUTI SONOB 1.37 g (SG 15.39: 69 %Au) 17 mm. Grierson A(a) BM-B7471 (De Salis donation, unknown origin) Same dies as 23-31.23. Obv. as last Rev. as last. 1.38 g (SG 15.95: 74 % Au) 17 mm. Grierson A(b) DOC 312 (Peirce coll. from Andronicus, Istanbul dealer). Same dies as 22 and 24-30.24. Obv. as last Rev. as last. Not measured Grierson A(c). Collection Vidal-Quadras y

Ramon 4998 (Barcelona). Same dies as 22-23 and 25-31 (if it is same dies as 22 it is also same as 23 and 25 etc.

25. Obv. as last Rev. as last. Not measured. Grierson A(d). From the collection Verworn (Münzen aus der Zeit der Völkerwanderung, Adolph Hess Nachf., sale of June 14, 1922 in Francfort, lot 243.) Same dies as 22-24 and 26-30.

26. Obv. as last Rev. as last 1.42 (SG 15.88: Au 74 %). Grierson not included. Stuttgart S.U. 1697. Same dies as 22-25, 27-30. 27. Obv. as last Rev. as last. 1.49 g (SG 16.62: 80.5 % Au). Grierson not included.

Stuttgart S.U. 1698. Same dies as 22-26, 28-30.28. Obv. as last Rev. as last. 1.40g (SG 16.48: 79 % Au), 16.5. Grierson not included,

BNC 10/Es/AV/01 (Schlumberger 2580). Same dies as 22-27, 29-30.29. Obv. as last Rev. as last. Not Measured. Grierson not included, Baldwin FPL,

Feb 1993. Same dies as 22-28 and 30.30. Obv. as last Rev. as last, 1.44 g (SG 15.49: 70 % Au), 17 mm. Grierson not included, PB 251 (Aureo, May 16, 1995, lot 104). Same dies as 22-29. 31. Obv. (\N)Eb S¡ IU=RR UT Rev. UISTObI USUTI, SONOB 1.42 g (missing edge) (SG 15.09: 66 % Au) 19 mm. Grierson not included, PB 252 (Aureo May 28, 2002, Lot 2073).32. Obv. \NEb S¡IU= R AUT Rev. UISTOb U UTIS, SONO 1.39 (hole) (SG 15.04: 65.5 % Au) 20 mm. Grierson not included, Moll 1797 (found on Menorca [Binicodrell, Es Migjorn Gran]).

97. B. MOll, L’Imperi romá d’Orient a Menorca: El testimony numismatic, GN, 157, 2005, pp. 5-44.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

APPENDIX ISG of Tremisses in ANS attributed to Constantinople

Justinian ANS No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Notes1968.131.19 1.508 18.80 96.7 1.46 1968.131.20 1.494 18.84 96.9 1.45 1948.19.1142 1.492 18.84 96.9 1.45 1968.131.21 1.480 18.89 97.2 1.44 1977.158.1033 1.492 18.80 96.7 1.44 1977.158.1034 1.466 18.81 96.8 1.42 1980.109.215 1.444 18.76 96.4 1.39 1944.100.1896 1.274 18.73 96.2 1Average 1.482 96.7 1.43

Maurice Tiberius ANS No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Notes1956.28.21 1.457 18.91 97.4 1.421944.100.13544 1.405 18.81 96.8 1.361946.57.4 1.475 18.86 97.1 1.431980.109.259 1.485 18.84 97.0 1.441944.100.13545 1.407 18.75 96.3 1.351944.100.13546 1.467 18.94 97.5 1.431977.158.1030 1.423 18.92 97.4 1.391977.158.1051 1.460 18.84 97.0 1.421968.131.50 1.460 18.87 97.2 1.421968.131.51 1.407 18.69 95.9 1.351968.131.53 0.714 18.88 97.3 21968.131.49 1.298 18.71 96.1 11968.131.52 0.713 18.85 97.1 3Average 1.44 96.2 1.40

Phocas ANS No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Notes1977.158.1056 1.482 18.79 96.6 1.431980.109.263 1.518 18.85 97.0 1.471956.28.22 1.410 18.98 97.8 1.38 sm. hole1944.100.13555 1.465 18.95 97.6 1.43000.999.1033 1.420 18.69 95.9 1.361968.131.74 1.319 18.85 97.0 1.281944.100.13553 1.407 18.77 96.5 1.361944.100.13554 1.374 19.04 98.2 1.351974.26.114 1.239 18.90 97.3 41968.131.75 1.448 18.21 92.7 1.34 6Average 1.46 18.50 96,7 1.38

Heraclius ANS No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Notes1968.131.107 1.499 18.85 97.0 1.451968.131.108 1.397 18.82 96.8 1.351907.408.1 1.469 18.83 96.9 1.421944/100.135.72 1.450 18.88 97.2 1.411977.158.1068 1.482 18.83 96.9 1.441968.131.105 1.460 18.76 96.4 1.411968.131.142 1.419 18.73 96.2 1.361977.185.1067 1.393 18.85 97.0 1.351944.100.13573 1.435 17.79 89.6 5Average 1.44 18.32 97.0 1.40

Notes1 clipped weight not included 4 low wt? weight not included2 odd style etc weight not included 5 low Au? Au not used3 missing part weight not included 6 low Au? used


RN 2011, p. 351-401

APPENDIX IISpecific gravity measurments of Visigothic Coins Minted

from Justinian to Suinthila

Visigothic coins in the name of Justinian

TomasiniGroup98

TomasiniCorpus

Collection99 No. Weight, g SG Au % IntrinsicValue, g

JAN-2 248 ASHM 160 1.355 NA 91.9 1.25

JAN-2 261 ASHM 161 1.425 NA 94.0 1.34

JAN-2a 278 ASHM 162 1.342 NA 91.0 1.22

JAN-2b 295 ASHM 163 1.211 NA 94.1 1.14

JAN-3 311 ASHM 164 1.444 NA 93.9 1.36

JAN-4 325 ASHM 165 1.433 NA 93.7 1.34

JAN-8 372 ASHM 166 1.370 NA 91.6 1.25

JI-3 213 MEC 192 1.460 18.87 97.0 1.42

JAN-1? 646 MEC 193 1.420 17.80 90.0 1.28

JAN-2 253 MEC 194 1.280 18.66 96.0 1.23

JAN-2 275 var MEC 195 1.260 17.91 90.0 1.13

JAN-2a 281 MEC 196 1.440 17.91 91.0 1.31

JAN-2a 283 var MEC 197 1.230 18.50 94.0 1.16

JAN-3 299 MEC 198 1.450 18.71 96.0 1.39

JAN-3 299 MEC 199 1.450 18.55 95.0 1.38

JAN-3? 645 MEC 200 1.440 18.56 95.0 1.37

Average 1.376 93.39 1.29

COS - Cross on Steps Coinage of Leovigild > 578-84

98. HAS (Hispanic Society of America), PB (Collection of Peter Bartlett), Cores (Collection of Gonzalo Cores part of which is now in MAN), MAN (Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Madrid), Yndias 2 (Sale of Aureo & Calico, Barcelona, June 2009), Oddy (unpublished data of WA Oddy), AM (Collection of Dr, Antonio Miranda, Santa Tirso, Portugal), ASHM (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), BNP (Bibliotèque Nationale de Francia, Paris), GNC (Gabinete Numismático de Cataluña, Barcelona), MNA(Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, Portugal), MNP (Museu Numismático Portuguěs), UBP (Collection of the União de Bancos Portugueses S.A., now Banco Mello S.A.), Yndias (Col. Caballero de las Yndias, sale by Aureo and Calicó, Barcelona the 21 & 22 of October, 2009).

99. JAN = Justinian, J1 = Justin I, the succeeding number are groups which Tomasini arranged each coinage into.


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Justin II – Leovigild / VWP Coins

Tomasini Group Coin No. Collection Inventory No. Weight, g SG Au % Other Au % Method Ref. Notes Measured by

JII-1 408 HSA 16729 1.37 18.20 92.6 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-1 Unknown MNA 14 1.38 94.1 PIXE Ensaios 23 Marques et al.

JII-2 434 GNC 9853 1.37 18.44 94.2 unpublished Bartlett

JII-3 453 ANS 1956.25.8 1.09 18.30 93.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-3 452 ASHM 169 1.37 NA 91.2 94.0 Milliprobe Metcalf and Schweizer Oddy (SG), Metcalf et al. (Other)

JII-3 Unknown MNP 22 1.156 94.9 PIXE Ensaios 24 Marques et al.

Average 92.3 94.5


JII-4 484 MEC 203 1.43 18.19 93.0 MEC Oddy


JII-4 similar to 487 PB 17 1.27 16.4 78.5 unpublished Bartlett

JII-4 MNA 17 1.24 96.4 PIXE Ensaios 24 Marques et al.

Average 1.33 84.1

JII-4a 495 HSA 519 1.13 16.70 81.1 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-4a 498 ANS 1956.25.9 1.25 15.00 65.1 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-4a 499 GNC 9862 1.20 17.73 89.2 unpublished Bartlett

JII-4a 660 MEC 204 1.36 18.61 95.0 MEC Oddy

Average 1.23 82.6


JII-5 503 MEC 205 1.47 18.67 96.0 MEC Oddy

JII-5 504 AM 43 1.409 97.3 PIXE Ensaios 26 Marques et al.

JII-5 504 UBP 13 1.474 97.1 PIXE No.11 in Metcalf et al.

JII-5 510 UBP 14 1.473 94.9 PIXE No. 12 in Metcalf et al.



JII-5 similar to 518 Yndias 1238 1.47 17.35 86.4 unpublished Bartlett

JII-5 similar to 518-519 MEC 209 1.300 17.37 86.0 MEC Oddy

JII-5 similar to 518-519 PB 18 1.293 17.51 87.6 same dies as MEC 209 UP Bartlett

Average 1.406 88.4 95.6

JII-7 535 MEC 206 1.43 17.5300 88.0 MEC Oddy


JII-7 535 MNA 16 1.410 94.2 PIXE Ensaios 28 Marques et al.

Average 1.40 78.4


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Justin II – Leovigild / VWP Coins



JII-1 Unknown MNA 14 1.38 94.1 PIXE Ensaios 23 Marques et al.


JII-3 453 ANS 1956.25.8 1.09 18.30 93.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson


JII-3 Unknown MNP 22 1.156 94.9 PIXE Ensaios 24 Marques et al.

Average 92.3 94.5


JII-4 484 MEC 203 1.43 18.19 93.0 MEC Oddy


JII-4 similar to 487 PB 17 1.27 16.4 78.5 unpublished Bartlett

JII-4 MNA 17 1.24 96.4 PIXE Ensaios 24 Marques et al.

Average 1.33 84.1

JII-4a 495 HSA 519 1.13 16.70 81.1 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-4a 498 ANS 1956.25.9 1.25 15.00 65.1 Kurt, 2001 Olson

JII-4a 499 GNC 9862 1.20 17.73 89.2 unpublished Bartlett

JII-4a 660 MEC 204 1.36 18.61 95.0 MEC Oddy

Average 1.23 82.6


JII-5 503 MEC 205 1.47 18.67 96.0 MEC Oddy

JII-5 504 AM 43 1.409 97.3 PIXE Ensaios 26 Marques et al.

JII-5 504 UBP 13 1.474 97.1 PIXE No.11 in Metcalf et al.

JII-5 510 UBP 14 1.473 94.9 PIXE No. 12 in Metcalf et al.



JII-5 similar to 518 Yndias 1238 1.47 17.35 86.4 unpublished Bartlett

JII-5 similar to 518-519 MEC 209 1.300 17.37 86.0 MEC Oddy

JII-5 similar to 518-519 PB 18 1.293 17.51 87.6 same dies as MEC 209 UP Bartlett

Average 1.406 88.4 95.6

JII-7 535 MEC 206 1.43 17.5300 88.0 MEC Oddy


JII-7 535 MNA 16 1.410 94.2 PIXE Ensaios 28 Marques et al.

Average 1.40 78.4


RN 2011, p. 351-401

CVRRV Coinage Justin II-Leovigild?


C-1 549 HSA 8166 1.38 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 552 HSA 15975 1.42 18.60 95.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 553 HSA 15980 1.45 18.20 92.6 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 554 HSA 16731 1.46 18.10 91.8 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 same dies 550 PB 11 1.40 18.53 95.0 unpublished Bartlett

C-1 same dies 543 AM 41 1.44 96.0 PIXE Ensaios 29 Marques et al.

Average 1.42 93.7

C-2 564 GNC 9865 1.22 18.37 93.79 unpublished Bartlett

C-2 560 HSA 15976 1.47 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 561 HSA 15977 1.44 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 562 HSA 15978 1.44 18.00 91.20 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 565 HSA 7891 1.37 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 566 ASHM 171 1.49 NA 93.50 99 Milliprobe Metcalf and Schweizer Oddy (SG), Metcalf et al. (Other)

Average 1.41 93.42

Leovigild?

C-3 569 HSA 15981 1.27 17.90 90.5 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 574 HSA 497 1.28 17.60 88.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 575 HSA 16756 1.28 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 577 ANS 1957.28.1 1.27 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 578 HSA 501 1.35 17.00 83.5 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 573 MEC 207 1.40 18.59 95.0 MEC Oddy

C-3 similar to 570 PB 13 1.32 18.60 95.3 unpublished Bartlett

C-3 same dies 583? PB 14 1.24 17.90 90.5 unpublished Bartlett


C-3 similar to 586 Yndias 1234 1.26 17.49 87.4 unpublished Bartlett






C-3 similar to 573-587 UBP 24 1.40 95.5 PIXE Metcalf and Schweizer Metcalf et al.

C-3 similar to 588 AM 45 1.27 96.0 PIXE Ensaios 30 Metcalf et al.

C-3 NA AM 44 1.28 92.5 PIXE Ensaios 31 Metcalf et al.


Average 1.30 91.5 93.2


RN 2011, p. 351-401



C-1 549 HSA 8166 1.38 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 552 HSA 15975 1.42 18.60 95.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 553 HSA 15980 1.45 18.20 92.6 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 554 HSA 16731 1.46 18.10 91.8 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-1 same dies 550 PB 11 1.40 18.53 95.0 unpublished Bartlett

C-1 same dies 543 AM 41 1.44 96.0 PIXE Ensaios 29 Marques et al.

Average 1.42 93.7


C-2 560 HSA 15976 1.47 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 561 HSA 15977 1.44 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 562 HSA 15978 1.44 18.00 91.20 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 565 HSA 7891 1.37 18.40 94.00 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-2 566 ASHM 171 1.49 NA 93.50 99 Milliprobe Metcalf and Schweizer Oddy (SG), Metcalf et al. (Other)

Average 1.41 93.42

Leovigild?

C-3 569 HSA 15981 1.27 17.90 90.5 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 574 HSA 497 1.28 17.60 88.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 575 HSA 16756 1.28 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 577 ANS 1957.28.1 1.27 18.40 94.0 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 578 HSA 501 1.35 17.00 83.5 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-3 573 MEC 207 1.40 18.59 95.0 MEC Oddy


C-3 same dies 583? PB 14 1.24 17.90 90.5 unpublished Bartlett








C-3 similar to 573-587 UBP 24 1.40 95.5 PIXE Metcalf and Schweizer Metcalf et al.

C-3 similar to 588 AM 45 1.27 96.0 PIXE Ensaios 30 Metcalf et al.



Average 1.30 91.5 93.2


RN 2011, p. 351-401



C-4 593 HSA 16734 1.320 15.10 66.2 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-4 594 HSA 16771 1.270 15.20 67.2 Kurt, 2001 Olson

Average 1.295 66.7

C-5 602 HSA 513 1.460 18.60 95.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-5 599 MEC 208 1.300 18.21 93.0 MEC Oddy

C-5 599 PB 12 1.430 18.50 95.0 unpublished Bartlett

C-5 596 ASHM 172 1.400 18.40 93.9 98.0 Milliprobe Metcalf and Schweizer Oddy (SG), Metcalf et al. (Other)

C-5 similar to 599 UBP 16 1.434 95.6 No. 22 in Metcalf et al.

Average 1.400 94.3

IR(Inclitus Rex) Coinage- Leovigild & Hermenegild


Leovigild 619 HSA 13002 1.29 15.50 70.1 Kurt, 2001 Olson



Leovigild New PB 19 1.27 17.30 86.0 Bartlett


Leovigild New Cores 11(a)4 1.28 16,70 81.1 Bartlett

Leovigild 625 GNC 9877 1.32 16,10 75.9 Bartlett


Hermenegild 632 BNP 13 1.36 16,30 77.6 Bartlett

Hermenegild New Cores 1 1.30 16,90 83.0 Bartlett

Average 10 coins 1.31 77.0


RN 2011, p. 351-401



C-4 593 HSA 16734 1.320 15.10 66.2 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-4 594 HSA 16771 1.270 15.20 67.2 Kurt, 2001 Olson

Average 1.295 66.7

C-5 602 HSA 513 1.460 18.60 95.3 Kurt, 2001 Olson

C-5 599 MEC 208 1.300 18.21 93.0 MEC Oddy

C-5 599 PB 12 1.430 18.50 95.0 unpublished Bartlett

C-5 596 ASHM 172 1.400 18.40 93.9 98.0 Milliprobe Metcalf and Schweizer Oddy (SG), Metcalf et al. (Other)

C-5 similar to 599 UBP 16 1.434 95.6 No. 22 in Metcalf et al.

Average 1.400 94.3

IR(Inclitus Rex) Coinage- Leovigild & Hermenegild







Leovigild New Cores 11(a)4 1.28 16,70 81.1 Bartlett



Hermenegild 632 BNP 13 1.36 16,30 77.6 Bartlett

Hermenegild New Cores 1 1.30 16,90 83.0 Bartlett

Average 10 coins 1.31 77.0


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Mint Collection Inventory No. Weight, g SG Au % IntrinsicValue, g Pliego No. Measured by

Hispalis HSA 16004 1.24 16.1 75.8 0.94 45a1 Olson*

Hispalis HSA 15988 1.29 16.4 78.5 1.01 45b1 Olson*

Italica HSA 16751 1.21 16.1 75.8 0.92 49 1 Olson*

Italica PB 25 1.27 16.5 79.4 1.01 49 2 BartlettReccopolis HSA 16006 1.23 16.2 76.7 0.94 36a1 Olson*

Toleto HSA 15993 1.3 15.6 71.1 0.92 42c1 Olson*



Toleto PB 22 1.50 16.0 74.8 1.14 43c32 BartlettElvora HSA 15982 1.10 15.2 67.2 0.74 52b1 Olson*

Elvora HSA 15987 1.36 15.5 70.1 0.95 52b2 Olson*

Elvora HSA 15986 1.19 16.0 74.8 0.89 52e1 Olson*

Elvora MEC 210 1.28 15.6 70.9 0.91 52b3 OddyEmerita HSA 16498 1.26 15.4 69.2 0.87 54e1 Olson*

Emerita ANS 56.25.12 1.29 16.0 74.8 0.96 54d1 Olson*

Emerita HSA F 4 1.17 15.7 72.1 0.84 54d2 Olson*

Emerita PB 24B 1.26 15.8 73.0 0.92 54a2 BartlettTirasona HSA 16670 1.22 15.5 70.1 0.86 34 1 Olson*

Average 1.26 15.84 73.3 0.93

* As published in appendix of Kurt, 2001.

Visigoth coinage of the facing bust type 584-c. 624

Ruler Mint Collection100 No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.

Leovigild Toleto Stockholm 207340 1.50 16.28 77.4 1.16 42 c.4Toleto HSA 15992 1.45 15.90 73.9 1.07 43 c.1-4Toleto HSA 15996 1.49 15.90 73.9 1.10 43 c.1-4Toleto HSA 15998 1.48 15.70 72.1 1.07 43 c.1-4Toleto HSA 15991 1.53 15.80 73.0 1.12 43 d.1Toleto HSA 15995 1.49 15.60 71.1 1.06 43 c.24Toleto MEC 212 1.52 16.20 77.0 1.17 43 c.12Toleto PB 22 1.53 16.00 74.8 1.14 43 c.32Hispalis HSA 8114 1.49 16.60 80.3 1.20 46 b.1Hispalis HSA 16668 1.54 16.20 76.7 1.18 48 b.1Hispalis PB 26 1.42 16.45 79.0 1.12 47 a.1Emerita Stockholm 207341 1.48 15.65 71.8 1.06 56 a.1Emerita HSA F 5 1.33 15.80 73.0 Missing edge 56 b.2Emerita PB 24 1.54 16.20 77.0 1.19 57 2Saldania HSA 16001 1.36 16.20 76.7 1.04 39 1Elvora HSA 15984 1.49 15.70 72.1 1.07 53 b.1

100. HSA (Hispanic Society of America before Sisebut most coins measured by Olson), PB (Collection of Peter Bartlett), Cores (Collection of Gonzalo Cores part of which is now in MAN), MAN (Museo Nacional de Arqueólogía, Madrid), Yndias 2 (Aureo & Calico sale, Barcelona, June 2009), Oddy (unpublished data of W.A. Oddy).


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Elvora HSA 16008 1.51 15.40 69.2 1.04 53 a.1-2Elvora HSA 16010 1.51 15.50 70.1 1.06 53 a.1-2Elvora HSA 15983 1.46 15.60 71.1 1.04 54 d.1-2Elvora HSA 16009 1.53 15.40 69.2 1.06 54 d.1-2Elvora MEC 211 1.52 15.47 70.0 1.06 53 a.13Narbona HSA 16005 1.44 15.50 70.1 1.01 19 1Narbona HSA 15989 1.48 16.30 77.6 1.15 22 1Cesaragusta HSA 16669 0.94 16.80 81.9 0.77 29 1Rodas HSA 16007 1.45 15.30 68.2 0.99 32 b.1Amasia PB 23 1.48 16.30 77.6 1.14 23 1Average Leovigild 26 Coins 1.46 74.0 1.08

Reccared I Toleto Stockholm 207339 1.54 15.76 72.8 1.12 98 b.17-21Toleto Stockholm 207338 1.51 15.65 71.7 1.08 98 b.17-21Toleto Stockholm 207337 1.49 16.00 74.9 1.12 98 b.17-21Toleto HSA 16055 1.48 15.90 73.9 1.09 98 a.1Toleto HSA 16052 1.42 15.70 72.1 1.02 98 a.3Toleto HSA 16049 1.49 15.90 73.9 1.10 98 b.1-2Toleto HSA 16051 1.56 15.90 73.9 1.15 98 .3-10bToleto HSA 16053 1.48 15.50 70.1 1.04 98 .3-10bToleto HSA 16054 1.52 15.80 73.0 1.11 98 .3-10bToleto HSA 16057 1.43 15.90 73.9 1.06 98 .3-10bToleto HSA 16058 1.45 15.50 70.1 1.02 98 b.3-10Toleto HSA 16059 1.48 15.60 71.1 1.05 98 b.3-10Toleto HSA 16060 1.54 15.80 73.0 1.12 98 b.3-10Toleto HSA 16063 1.51 15.60 71.1 1.07 98 b.2Toleto HSA 8102 1.43 16.10 75.8 1.08 98 b.3-10Toleto HSA F 17 1.51 15.80 73.0 1.10 98 b.37Toleto MEC 223 1.53 15.94 74.0 1.13 98 a.7Toleto PB 34 1.52 16.10 75.8 1.15 98(a)15Hispalis HSA F 11 1.46 15.60 71.1 1.04 105 b.5Hispalis HSA 16037 1.48 15.70 72.1 1.07 105 h.2Hispalis HSA 16041 1.51 16.00 74.8 1.13 106 a.1-2Hispalis HSA 16509 1.49 15.70 72.1 1.07 106 a.1-2Hispalis HSA 16038 1.49 15.60 71.1 1.06 106 b.1-2Hispalis HSA 16036 1.52 15.90 73.9 1.12 106 b.1-2Hispalis HSA 16039 1.50 15.70 72.1 1.08 106 d.1Hispalis MEC 222 1.46 15.67 72.0 1.05 105 h.1Hispalis MEC 221 1.55 16.06 75.0 1.16 106 e.38Hispalis PB 32 1.46 15.90 73.9 1.08 106 b.11Hispalis PB 33 1.50 16.00 74.8 1.12 106 d.10Hispalis Yndias 2 1012 1.46 15.94 74.3 1.09 Not IncludedEliberri HSA 16065 1.42 14.80 63.0 0.89 101 a.1Eliberri HSA 16023 1.39 14.70 62.0 0.86 101 f.1Eliberri HSA F 10 1.41 14.80 63.0 0.89 101 e.1Eliberri MEC 216 1.47 15.19 67.0 0.98 101 c.1Eliberri PB 31 1.43 14.90 64.1 0.92 101 a.7Emerita HSA 16027 1.44 16.20 76.7 1.10 114 a.1Emerita HSA 16028 1.42 15.80 73.0 1.04 114 a.2Emerita HSA F 13 1.50 15.60 71.1 1.07 114 a.28-30Emerita HSA F 14 1.49 15.80 73.0 1.09 114 a.28-30Emerita HSA F 16 1.46 15.70 72.1 1.05 114 a.28-30


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Emerita HSA 16029 1.51 15.80 73.0 1.10 114 d.1Emerita HSA F 15 1.51 16.40 78.5 1.19 114 b.6Emerita HSA 16030 1.51 15.90 73.9 1.12 114 g.1-3Emerita HSA 16042 1.52 15.90 73.9 1.12 114 g.4Emerita HSA 16032 1.51 16.80 81.9 1.24 114 g.1-3Emerita HSA 16034 1.51 15.70 72.1 1.09 114 g.1-3Emerita ANS 69.222.78 1.52 16.10 75.8 1.15 114 g.14Emerita HSA F 12 1.52 16.20 76.7 1.17 114 g.18Emerita HSA 16033 1.46 16.50 79.4 1.16 115 1.aEmerita HSA 16026 1.44 15.90 73.9 1.06 116 e.1Emerita HSA 16035 1.48 15.80 73.0 1.08 116 g.1Emerita HSA 16031 1.49 15.60 71.1 1.06 117 a.1Emerita MEC 220 1.46 16.14 76.0 1.11 114 b.2Emerita MEC 219 1.49 16.03 75.0 1.12 116 g.2Emerita PB 35 1.51 16.00 74.8 1.13 114 a.34Emerita PB 36 1.43 16.30 77.6 1.11 114 g.28Emerita PB 37 1.52 16.20 76.7 1.17 116 c.5Elvora HSA 16021 1.49 15.70 72.1 1.07 112 a.1-2Elvora HSA 16022 1.45 15.40 69.2 1.00 112 a.1-2Elvora HSA 16024 1.56 15.70 72.1 1.12 112 b.1-2Elvora HSA 16071 1.49 15.40 69.2 1.03 112 b.1-2Elvora HSA 16025 1.47 16.20 76.7 1.13 112 c.1Elvora MEC 217 1.51 15.89 74.0 1.12 112 b.6Narbona HSA 16043 1.51 15.70 72.1 1.09 63 b.1Narbona HSA 16044 1.43 15.90 73.9 1.06 64 a.1Barcinona HSA 10620 1.51 15.70 72.1 1.09 67 a.1Barcinona HSA 16067 1.47 15.60 71.1 1.05 67 d.1Barcinona HSA 16582 1.47 15.30 68.2 1.00 67 e.1Cesaragusta HSA 16015 1.50 15.90 73.9 1.11 70 a.1Cesaragusta HSA 16016 1.48 16.10 75.8 1.12 70 d.1Cesaragusta HSA 16018 1.46 15.50 70.1 1.02 71 b.1Cesaragusta HSA NOT F 1 1.47 15.80 73.0 1.07 71 c.3Cesaragusta HSA 16069 1.46 15.50 70.1 1.02 72 c.1Cesaragusta HSA 16017 1.45 16.40 78.5 1.14 76 b.1Roda PB 27 1.48 15.78 73.0 1.08 79 a.1Tarracona HSA 16050 1.40 15.50 70.1 0.98 80 a.1Tarracona HSA 16046 1.46 15.40 69.2 1.01 81 b.1Tarracona HSA 16047 1.47 15.40 69.2 1.02 83 d.1Tarracona HSA F 8 1.50 15.40 69.2 1.04 85 1Tarracona HSA 16056 1.51 16.00 74.8 1.13 86 b.1Tarracona HSA 16048 1.49 16.40 78.5 1.17 86 c.1Tarracona PB 28 1.45 16.30 77.6 1.13 96eTirasona HSA 16072 1.45 15.20 67.2 0.97 91 .1fReccopolis PB 29 1.49 15.80 73.0 1.09 96 e.1Saldania HSA 16045 1.55 15.90 73.9 1.15 97 1Cordoba HSA 16020 1.50 16.10 75.8 1.14 100 c.1Cordoba HSA 16019 1.41 15.30 68.2 0.96 100jCordoba MEC 215 1.50 15.96 74.0 1.11 100cCordoba PB 30 1.49 16.20 76.7 1.14 100 i.2Eminio MEC 214 1.48 15.44 70.0 1.04 120 b.1Calapa MEC 213 1.50 15.63 71.0 1.07 134 1Vallegia HSA 16064 1.48 16.00 74.8 1.11 154 1Average Reccared I 1.48 72.8 1.08


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Liuva II Toleto HSA 16075 1.51 15.60 74.8 1.13 160 c.1Hispalis HSA 16076 1.51 16.00 74.8 1.13 163 b.1Hispalis HSA F 18 1.49 15.40 69.2 1.03 163 b.6Hispalis MEC 225 1.48 16.17 76.0 1.12 163 b.3Hispalis PB 38 1.53 15.89 73.0 1.12 163 b.14Emerita HSA 16077 1.49 15.40 69.2 1.03 165 a.1Emerita MEC 224 1.43 15.86 74.0 1.06 165 a.1Emerita PB 41 1.50 15.80 73.0 1.10 165 b.5Tarracona HSA 16074 1.47 15.2 67.2 0.99 158 b.1Average Liuva II 1.49 72.4 1.08

Witteric Toleto HSA 16087 1.49 15.60 71.1 1.06 186 b.1-2Toleto HSA 16088 1.52 15.50 70.1 1.07 186 b.1-2Toleto HSA F 23 1.46 15.80 73.0 1.07 186 b.10-11Toleto HSA F 24 1.52 15.70 72.1 1.10 186 b.10-11Toleto MEC 229 1.50 15.71 75.0 1.13 186 b.5Hispalis HSA 16082 1.44 15.60 71.1 1.02 190 a.1-2Hispalis HSA 16086 1.32 15.20 67.2 0.89 190 a.1-2Hispalis MEC 228 1.50 15.58 71.0 1.07 190 a.16Hispalis Cores 18-9 1.50 15.93 74.2 1.12 No. UnknownHispalis Cores 18-10 1.48 15.87 73.7 1.09 190 a.22Hispalis J.Vico, Sale118 429 1.47 15.90 73.9 1.09 190 c.25Hispalis PB 45 1.49 15.86 73.6 1.10 190 e.20Emerita Cores 18-1 1.45 15.48 70.0 1.01 193 f.4Emerita Cores 18-2 1.46 15.93 74.2 1.08 194 c.10Emerita Cores 18-3 1.49 15.54 70.5 1.05 193 b.4Emerita Cores 18-4 1.44 15.70 72.1 1.04 193 e.2Emerita HSA 16083 1.45 15.30 68.2 0.99 194 c.1-2Emerita HSA 16084 1.45 15.60 71.1 1.03 194 c.1-2Emerita HSA 16085 1.43 15.80 73.0 1.04 193 d.1Emerita HSA F 21 1.46 15.60 71.1 1.04 193 f.1Emerita MEC 227 1.51 15.71 72.0 1.09 193 b.3Emerita PB 47 1.51 15.90 73.9 1.12 193 f.7Emerita PB 48 1.49 15.70 72.1 1.07 193 c.6Eliberri MEC 226 1.44 15.10 66.0 0.95 189 a.7Eliberri PB 44 1.42 15.11 66.3 0.94 189 d.1Narabona PB 42 1.50 15.11 66.3 0.99 172, 1Cesaragusta PB 43 1.37 15.56 70.6 0.96 174 a.3Cesaragusta Cores 18-5 1.43 15.29 68.1 0.98 174 b.1Tarracona Cores 18-6 1.41 15.33 68.5 0.97 No.unknownTarracona Cores 18-7 1.47 14.90 64.1 0.94 No.unknownMentesa Cores 18-8 1.40 15.51 70.2 0.98 183 f.1Average Witteric 1.46 70.8 1.03

Gundemar Barcinona Cores 1.42 15.40 69.2 0.98 216, 1Cesaragusta HSA 1.46 15.40 69.2 1.01 217 d.1Cesaragusta Cores 18-6-5 1.42 15.26 67.8 0.97 No. unknownTarracona HSA 16759 1.46 15.10 66.2 0.97 219 a.1Tarracona J.Vico, Sale118 431 1.35 15.18 67.0 0.91 219 c.2Tarracona Cores 18-6-6 1.45 15.19 67.1 0.98 219 a.10


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Volotania Cores 18-6-13 1.26 15.67 71.8 0.90 221, 2Toleto HSA 16089 1.40 15.00 65.1 0.91 224 a.1Toleto Cores 18-6-7 1.45 15.49 70.0 1.02 224 a.13Mentesa Cores 18-6-12 1.43 14.92 64.3 0.92 222 d.1Mentesa HSA 16096 1.42 14.90 64.1 0.91 222 a.1Hispalis J.Vico, Sale118 430 1.37 16.00 74.8 1.02 227 h.2Hispalis J.Vico Sale 120 352 1.55 15.98 74.6 1.15 227Hispalis Cores 18-6-11 1.52 15.82 73.2 1.11 228 c.8Hispalis PB 51 1.46 15.90 73.9 1.08 227 k.1Hispalis PB 37 1.49 15.65 73.9 1.10 228 c.1Eliberri PB 52 1.42 15.02 65.3 0.93 226, 5Eliberri Cores 18-6-9 1.55 15.01 65.2 1.01 No. unknownEliberri MEC 230 1.45 15.14 66.6 0.97 226 1Cordoba Cores 18-6-9 1.50 15.90 73.9 1.11 225 1Emerita PB 49 1.50 15.75 72.6 1.09 232 b.4Average Gundemar 1.44 69.3 1.00

Sisebut Cesaragusta HSA 16100 1.41 14.9 64.1 0.90 247 a.1-2Cesaragusta HSA 16101 1.36 14.9 64.1 0.87 247 a.3Cesaragusta HSA 16102 1.42 15.1 66.2 0.94 247 a.1-2Cesaragusta HSA 16104 1.39 14.9 64.1 0.89 249 a.1Cesaragusta Cores 18-3-7 1.45 14.86 63.6 0.92 247 c.1Cesaragusta Cores 18-3-8 1.36 14.81 63.1 0.86 249 a.4Tarracona J.Vico Sale 118 435 1.41 14.50 60.0 0.84 255 g.1Tarracona HSA 16128 1.49 15 65.1 0.97 254 b.1Tarracona HSA F 29 1.43 15.5 70.1 1.00 254 a.2Tarracona HSA 16115 1.40 15.1 66.2 0.93 254 e.1Tarracona HSA F 30 1.44 15.1 66.2 0.95 254 e.2Tarracona HSA 16129 1.47 14.9 64.1 0.94 255 d.1Tarracona HSA F 28 1.33 14.5 59.9 0.80 255 a.2Tarracona MEC 233 1.43 14.65 62.0 0.89 255 c.3Tarracona PB 53 1.37 14.79 63.0 0.86 255 a.9Tarracona Cores 18-3-10 1.48 14.81 63.1 0.93 254 a.3Tarracona Cores 18-3-11 1.36 14.98 64.9 0.88 254 d.4Tarracona Cores 18-3-12 1.41 14.79 63.0 0.89 255 a.7Sagunto Cores 18-3-9 1.38 14.70 62.0 0.85 253 1Saldania PB 58 1.51 15.24 67.4 1.02 266 1Mave PB 56 1.55 16.00 74.0 1.15 261 1Reccopolis PB 57 0.80 13.83 63.3 265 1Acci HSA 16013 1.40 14.5 59.9 0.84 257 f.1Acci PB 54 1.41 13.17 51.6 0.73 257 c.5Acci Cores 18-4-1 1.29 14.45 59.0 0.76 257 b.3Acci Cores 18-4-2 1.44 14.90 64.0 0.92 257 c.1Acci Cores 18-4-3 1.42 14.95 64.6 0.92 258 1Mentesa HSA 16127 1.03 14.7 62.0 262 a.1Mentesa PB 55 1.41 14.90 64.1 0.90 263 a.6Mentesa Cores 18-4-4 1.40 14.94 64.5 0.90 263 a.3Mentesa Cores 18-4-5 1.42 14.93 64.4 0.91 NAMentesa Cores 18-4-6 1.42 14.91 64.2 0.91 NAMentesa Cores 18-4-7 1.42 14.87 63.7 0.90 NAMentesa Cores 18-4-8 1.38 14.97 65.0 0.89 NA


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Mentesa J.Vico Sale 118 434 1.37 14.93 64.4 0.88 264cToleto PB 59 1.47 14.91 64.2 0.94 267 a.8Toleto PB 62 1.51 15.03 65.4 0.99 267 a.45Toleto PB 61 1.47 15.25 67.7 0.99 267 d.4Toleto PB 60 1.52 15.13 66.5 1.01 267 h.2Toleto HSA 16116 1.52 14.6 61.0 0.93 267 a.1Toleto HSA 16132 1.49 14.7 62.0 0.92 267 a.2Toleto HSA 16133 1.44 14.9 64.1 0.92 267 a.3Toleto HSA 16135 1.44 14.8 63.0 0.91 267 a.45Toleto HSA F 31 1.51 15.1 66.2 1.00 267 a.15Toleto HSA NOT F 2 1.46 15.3 68.2 1.00 267 a.16Toleto Oddy 74 1.39 15.18 67.0 Broken not used 267 aToleto MEC 234 1.42 14.95 65.0 0.92 267 a.19Cordoba HSA 16105 1.52 16.2 76.7 1.17 271 c.1Cordoba Cores 18-4-12 1.50 15.43 69.5 1.04 271 j.2VictorBarbi PB 67a 1.43 15.16 66.8 0.95 268 1Barbi PB 67b 1.46 14.48 60.0 0.88 269 d.1Barbi PB 68 1.39 14.85 63.5 0.88 269 a.4Barbi PB 72 0.87 14.83 63.0 Broken not used 269 a.15Barbi PB 70 1.45 14.85 64.0 0.93 269 a.5Barbi PB 71 1.43 14.94 64.0 0.92 269 a.6Barbi PB 69 1.42 14.87 64.0 0.91 269 a.8Eliberri PB 65 1.45 14.86 63.6 0.92 273 d.3Eliberri PB 63 1.38 14..91 64.2 0.89 272 a.7Eliberri PB 64 1.39 14.79 62.9 0.87 272 n.4Eliberri PB 66 1.45 14.86 63.6 0.92 273 b.1Eliberri HSA 16106 1.47 15.08 66.2 0.97 272 b.1Eliberri HSA F 26 1.32 14.58 61.0 Broken not used 272 a.3Eliberri HSA F 27 1.33 14.78 63.0 0.84 272 0.1Hispalis HSA 16121 1.46 15.5 70.1 1.02 274 a.1Hispalis HSA 16244 1.49 15.2 67.2 1.00 275 a.2-4Hispalis HSA 16376 1.48 15.3 68.2 1.01 275 a.2-4Hispalis HSA 16418 1.47 15.4 69.2 1.02 275 a.2-4Hispalis HSA 16120 1.45 15.3 68.2 0.99 274 d.1Hispalis HSA 16124 1.49 15.5 70.1 1.04 274 d.2-3Hispalis HSA 16426 1.54 15.4 69.2 1.07 274 d.2-3Hispalis MEC 232 1.48 15.54 71.0 1.05 274 d.4Hispalis BnF 40 1.47 15.08 65.9 0.97 275 d.12Hispalis PB 73 1.43 15.70 72.1 1.03 274 a.55Hispalis PB 74 1.46 15.45 69.7 1.02 274 a.36Hispalis PB 75 1.47 15.31 68.3 1.00 275 d.35Hispalis PB 76 1.41 15.35 68.7 0.97 274 f.2Hispalis J.Vico, Sale118 433 1.47 15.59 71.0 1.04 Not includedHispalis J.Vico, Sale118 432 1.50 15.33 68.5 1.03 Not includedEmerita MEC 231 1.45 15.4 69.0 1.00 285 c.5Emerita PB 79 1.47 15.17 66.9 0.98 284 a.4Emerita PB 78 1.50 15.48 69.9 1.05 286 h.5Emerita PB 80 1.47 15.39 69.1 1.01 284 c.4Emerita PB 77 1.48 15.17 66.9 0.99 285 c.36Emerita HSA 8109 1.46 15.37 68.9 1.00 285 a.1-2Emerita HSA 16119 1.51 15.29 68.1 1.03 285 a.1-2Emerita HSA 16108 1.43 15.29 68.1 0.97 285 c.1-2


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Emerita HSA 16545 1.48 15.82 73.2 1.08 285 c.1-2Emerita PB 81 1.60 16.03 75.0 1.20 286 f.2Emerita Cores 18-9 1.49 15.59 74.7 1.11 NAEmerita Cores 18-10 1.48 15.57 70.8 1.05 NAEminio HSA 16109 1.48 15.9 73.9 1.09 289 a.1Eminio PB 82 1.41 15.47 70.0 0.99 289 a.2Eminio PB 83 1.46 15.53 70.4 1.03 187 a.2Egitania BnF 39 1.33 15.61 71.2 0.95 281 d.1Egitania PB 85 1.34 17.66 89.0 1.19 281 b.2Elvora PB 84 1.48 14.91 64.2 0.95 283 a.20Laetera HSA 16112 1.38 15.70 72.1 0.99 310 a.1Lucu HSA 16113 1.54 15.70 72.1 1.11 313 1Pincia HSA 16114 1.24 15.10 66.2 0.82 319 1Bracara PB 87 1.44 15.74 72.5 1.04 300 b.2Tude HSA 16117 1.50 14.90 64.1 0.96 325 b.1Tude PB 86 1.54 15.00 65.1 1.01 325 a.2Tude Cores 18-1 1.50 15.06 65.8 0.99 285 c.1Average Sisebut 1.44 66.4 0.96

Reccared II Acci Cores et al. 1 1.40 14.90 64.0 0.89 330 a.1Acci Cores et al. 2 1.39 15.00 65.1 0.90 330 b.1Toleto Cores et al. 4 1.40 15.00 65.0 0.91 331 b.1 Toleto Col. PB 90 1.51 14.80 63.0 0.95 331 a.4Eliberri Cores et al. 10 1.52 14.48 60.0 0.91 333 c.1Eliberri Cores et al. 11 1.37 14.90 64.0 0.88 333 b.2Hispalis Cores et al. 14 1.44 15.23 67.0 0.97 334 a.1Hispalis Col. PB 91 1.43 15.40 69.2 0.99 334 a.2Barbi Col. PB 92 1.40 14.45 59.0 0.83 332 a.2Emerita Col. PB 93 1.44 15.20 67.2 0.97 335 a.9Emerita Col. PB 94 1.51 15.10 66.2 1.00 335 a.8Emerita Cores et al. 15 1.49 15.30 68.0 1.01 335 a.1Average Reccared II 1.44 64.8 0.93

Suinthila Las Fuentes Emerita MAN-Cores 218 1.49 14.44 59.2 0.88 393 b.49* o 51Emerita MAN-Cores 219 1.50 15.14 66.6 1.00 393 d.5*Emerita MAN-Cores 220 1.49 15.40 69.2 1.03 393 j.9Emerita Cores 5-4 1.45 15.05 65.6 0.95 NAEmerita MAN-Cores 221 1.35 14.54 60.3 0.81 393 n.1*Emerita Cores 4-9 1.50 15.47 59.5 0.89 NAEmerita MAN-Cores 223 1.45 15.35 68.7 0.99 394 a.12*Emerita MAN-Cores 222 1.34 14.19 56.5 0.76 393 o.1*Emerita Cores 18-16 1.45 15.34 68.6 0.99 NAEmerita Cores 18-17 1.51 14.89 64.0 0.97 NABarbi MAN-Cores 175 1.46 14.85 63.6 0.93 366 d.44.Barbi MAN-Cores 176 1.41 14.83 63.3 0.89 366 e.10Barbi MAN-Cores 177 1.46 14.53 60.2 0.88 366 f.31-35Barbi MAN-Cores 178 1.46 14.65 61.5 0.90 366 f.31-35Barbi MAN-Cores 179 1.46 14.49 59.8 0.87 366 f.31-35Barbi MAN-Cores 180 1.47 14.60 61.0 0.90 Pliego 366 f.31-35Barbi Cores 18-6 1.43 14.76 62.6 0.89 NA


RN 2011, p. 351-401

Ruler Mint Collection No. Weight, g SG Au % Intrinsic Value, g Pliego No.Barbi Cores 18-7 1.43 14.80 63.0 0.90 NABarbi Cores 18-8 1.45 14.63 61.3 0.89 NABarbi Cores 18-11 1.47 14.72 62.2 0.91 NABarbi PB 125 1.46 14.59 60.9 0.89 366(f)130Cordoba Cores 18-9 1.48 14.91 64.2 0.95 NACordoba Cores 18-10 1.44 15.33 68.5 0.99 NACordoba PB 117 1.47 15.30 68.2 1.00 371b8Eliberri MAN-Cores 188 1.36 14.89 64.1 0.87 374 a.2*Eliberri MAN-Cores 189 1.41 14.87 64.1 0.90 374 c.1Eliberri MAN-Cores 190 1.45 14.75 63.0 0.91 375 b.10Eliberri MAN-Cores 191 1.41 14.76 63.0 0.89 375 c.1*Eliberri MAN-Cores 192 1.37 14.66 62.0 0.85 375 h.3* o 4Eliberri MAN-Cores 193 1.43 14.87 64.1 0.92 374 f.1*Eliberri MAN-Cores 194 1.41 14.80 63.0 0.89 Pliego 377 a.4.Eliberri MAN-Cores 195 1.36 14.70 62.0 0.85 Pliego 378 d.1Eliberri Cores 18-11 1.45 14.74 62.4 0.90 NAEliberri Cores 18-12 1.39 14.77 62.7 0.87 NAEliberri PB 131 1.31 14.80 63.0 0.82 375 b.10Hispalis MAN-Cores 196 1.50 15.25 67.7 1.02 381 a.58 o 56*Hispalis MAN-Cores 197 1.43 15.24 67.6 0.97 381 a.58 o 56*Hispalis MAN-Cores 198 1.36 15.23 67.5 0.92 381 e.1Hispalis MAN-Cores 199 1.47 15.25 67.7 0.99 381 l.8Hispalis MAN-Cores 200 1.49 15.22 67.4 1.01 381 m.2*Hispalis MAN-Cores 201 1.48 15.35 68.7 1.01 381 i.1*Hispalis Cores 18-14 1.44 15.27 67.9 0.98 NAHispalis PB 139 1.48 15.40 69.2 1.03 381 l.6Tucci MAN-Cores 202 1.42 14.69 61.9 0.88 383 a.1*Tucci MAN-Cores 203 1.36 14.74 62.4 0.85 383 g.4*Tucci MAN-Cores 204 1.42 14.30 57.7 0.82 384 a.14*Tucci MAN-Cores 205 1.39 14.32 57.9 0.81 384 h.6Tucci MAN-Cores 206 1.32 14.44 59.2 0.78 384 i.1*Tucci MAN-Cores 207 1.41 14.25 57.1 0.81 386 d.1*Tucci MAN-Cores 208 1.42 14.62 61.2 0.87 387 n.4*Tucci Cores 18-15 1.37 14.53 59.8 0.82 NATucci Cores 18-4 1.39 14.76 62.6 0.87 NATucci PB 148 1.32 14.79 62.9 0.83 383 a.5Acci MAN-Cores 209 1.35 13.72 50.8 0.69 347 c.1*Acci MAN-Cores 210 1.39 13.81 51.8 0.72 349 b.1*Acci MAN-Cores 211 1.39 14.28 57.4 0.80 349 f.1*Mentesa MAN-Cores 212 1.38 14.44 59.2 0.82 350 f.1Mentesa MAN-Cores 213 1.33 14.50 59.9 0.80 350 i.1*Mentesa MAN-Cores 214 1.38 14.54 60.3 0.83 350 j.1*Mentesa MAN-Cores 215 1.32 14.32 57.9 0.76 351 b.1*Mentesa Cores 18-3 1.23 14.17 56.1 0.69 NAMentesa Cores 18-4 1.35 14.44 59.2 0.80 NAMentesa Cores 18-5 1.31 14.40 58.8 0.77 NAMentesa PB 111 1.51 14.39 58.7 0.88 352 e.6Toleto PB 104a 1.40 14.73 62.0 0.87 361 e.3Toleto MAN-Cores 216 1.52 14.86 64.1 0.98 361 e.5Toleto PB 104b 1.43 14.88 63.8 0.92 NAToleto PB 104c 1.48 14.73 62.3 0.92 NAAverage Suinthila Las Fuentes 1.42 62.4 0.89

the byzantine gold coinage of spania (justinian i to ...1).pdf · rn 2011, p. 351-401 peter...

Documents